

















































































































































n Pi 



rS V % °yIWs «& \ 7*lfK* *>* * 

’; ^ o^ •*£§*£: "b^ ^ <y 

.* '.'ll®'' 


' v _ * ^y/v&* ~ ^ '\r * <&//])& ? 

L *’••'• f° V *.«•• O •Tv,.* ,c 

*r *» V'* 7> V % ,o^ 

> * ♦$* oo ♦ ,mWA,° <-v, c^ ♦ 

° o'/Z/yW® • <• S vP ■- ^^MPif'© \V«* 

* A * ^A. >j M/JsekVP * 4t? ^ 

<A 




• c ^ vP- V o . V • A . 

> * Kf? 'Ca • fra /ft.' /rv, . . ^ *$» 

* c 0 ^ °o .** t • *v# < 


4 O 

o ^ 


. r\ A 




4 O 

0 A 

-c. 

<*. * ^ * O. 1 ^ 

*e- *“ V s *."’. '+* 

v/ /jjster-. v.** :m v/ • 



•^O 4 



. o > 





• A*"*. 

V <?* 



.' A* rC* " '*+ # ; 

,. , \ ~ • ** ^ .»'• V <$>* .v«®v. *• 

.vX ’||B§; JX '‘sm: .v-\ \Y//m, :. **«>„ 

^ •*■«. .yiC\y • ■£> *>. •.» 

<* *'»..• ,G* >3 *'V.T S A 

■ .o v o°;°"*b o A i* k VL^« ^ g 0> . tC y • 

iq, * ^ 


A •'”-<. » 

;• V > • 





*b V 






!> •...' .0' 'O. *.-.,*■ 4.0- V “•• .0" <v ••■'• *° .. V *•••• ,y °<- ••■’■ 

; \f ;» ;|fc: \/ Xfg|; %/ V* 

A** ^' a* *'<>.. ,v, - 

)» c o • • „ *o A v •»'•* ^ 0^ 6 ° • • * **o a^ • 1 * • ♦ ^ ,0 c °JL* ♦ o A -•*'*« 

O A SaeSl??*,' C •jtfSSWG. O A ♦W^s’ V C •jSSSjfoV* ° .4 

. «sssifV' ^ oV v* igmSfr, ^ 0 < .'.•^ax*. -/I•V^SIA- •*•_•■»■ 









4 o 

>* * *-■• • *0' \v^- ' A'' 

V A .>.1^-- •>.<> A .:k'J:.A 


A * 


C-' <L- 

A 


. V 
A 



,> s % 

> / ' ' « ^r, ♦ | ’ A 

_ <> ° • k \v ys 4 • • * \ ’ _ 

^ 1 # 0 *•■ •# o ♦ v # # ♦ 

' - c -'<^^- ° # 



,, <$%, .. 

<, •-?.?* • / ^ ••yy r ‘' .o 


,0' 0^1"*,. 'o 





o* A 

A 

^ * 0 - 0 ° A 

V V 'O 





o V 




o 


a V>» ,4* 


•* 

_ _ * ,«- V 
<. '« • * 4 ,0 V 

V . . ‘ »_• ♦ ^ c <r 0 0 " • - 


r o Y 



* • 


'A. o' 



• •’ \'»\A %-?&#> V^V %.*••■• 

»v • • /v . \ f • o * j • • ^ ^ JJ f • o # £> 

•- ^ .'^JSi'. ** ^ % a* . 'Afcy . ^ ^ .v 

. : .t«r.- A i^K- : ; -J •* 

* •■-•- v A .."j. •% t°^ .v«G - ' °o A > 1 ^:. t ^ ^ 

. a..^ -vs^;-. 0 « .-.^lar-. -ov* ^o 4 


: V4 v 




r oK 



-.Wjjgjr: C.HO, 

^ ^f°° ' y h ^ 

*6 y.«i^L'4. > v v ^ ,,e ' 



♦ 4v ^ ° 



r. % ** *: 

vv 


0 A V ^ 

* Y <?* 


» a t> v 

A * 

l° <9 

> m < x » ’ c, ^ 

* <t? s Cjk • ' 

, <. '..** ,0 V 'TVV* A 

A^ . k * • 4 <***, o* 6 8 • • ♦ ^b A • 1 * • ♦ ^ 



. 0 rT • A „4 

X v j. «^TffS^xy« A X' 

^ v-^-V 

A ,!^L% ^ 

° A * 

° ^ S' 1 V4 



y 4 d 

*o V 




. ♦ o * ^ 'J 

V ^ * » » . i • * A 0 V "*’».« 

A * ’ • ®* *V vr A*1/* "> 

• t a A ’ ° 'xr A • ■’b* \ 





4 o 

O VJ > ^ 



'b V 


* A ^rv 

* A ^ 

«- V <i» >* . ^K, . . 

V T <b • » * «C> 'br ' ••** a A V. 

A .‘-s ^ ,0* «°r*, b o ,A 


A 




o^o 


^o> 'AHNS^-: ' r A 0 ' r oK . '-**0 




v-/:V Sf /:.W.\-7 sii v-/. s :v^ 

• V V V :§§) V aife V A VJ 




? • A ^ - jplaaPf 

8< <y A 


- 0 .,-—.>■ % "■■f^-' ,<?- % '-yrr>' a' >. ■•?."*^ 

** a\ O.o ^ .A . ‘ 0^ c 0 " ° •» *^b A • 1 ' * 

^ c ° y *is^lPjb* ^ ^ c ° s >' 

v *^v * %A§Py y°J^y 1*S;-- 

- /.^*. ^ a A.>*, %../ .^', \ y sMir. Vy -iste- V 

























United States 
Environmental Protection 
Agency 


Office of Noise Abatement 
and Control (ANR-471) 
Washington DC 20460 


November 1978 


r/EPA 


San Diego, California 


Case History of a Municipal 
Noise Control Program 














































































































SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 


Case History of a Municipal 
Noise Control Program 


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Office of Noise Abatement and Control 
Washington, D.C. 20460 


This report has been approved for general availability. The contents of this report 
reflect the views of the contractor, who is responsible for the facts and the ac¬ 
curacy of the data presented herein, and do not necessarily reflect the official 
views or policy of EPA. This report does not costitute a standard or regulations. 


• ^ r< 

. o 


NOTICE 


This report was prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Noise Abatement and Control, under contract number EPA- 
68-01-3845. The contents of this report reflect the views of the 
Contractor, who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the 
data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect 
the official policy of the Environment Protection Agency. 




The San Diego Region 

Source: Comprehensive Planning Organization 






Acknowledgements 


The authors express their gratitude to John M. Ropes, Director, State and 
Local Programs, Division; Cosimo Caccavari, Chief, Technical Assistance 
Branch; and Chester J. Shura, Technical Assistance Branch, all of the Environ¬ 
mental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC), 
for their guidance and assistance in defining project orientation, scope, and 
preparation for the History of an Outstanding Noise Control Program: San Diego, 
California (an ECHO Program Support Effort). A special acknowledgement is 
expressed to Francine H. Ely, EPA's Project Manager for the ECHO Case Studies, 
whose knowledge and representative presence during the 4 days of interviews in 
San Diego was most helpful, and her continuous support and guiding influence 
in the preparation of this document. A special thanks goes to Dick Procunier, 
EPA's Regional Representative, for sharing his insight and for relating the 
San Diego Program to others in his Region. 

Obviously, this report could not have been done without the able and 
generous assistance of James Dukes, San Diego's Noise Abatement and Control 
Administrator, and Councilman Lee Hubbard throughout the fact-finding team's 
4 days in San Diego. Virginia Taylor, Chairperson, and members in attendance 
at a special session of the San Diego County Noise Abatement and Control Board 
provided a unique insight into how the noise control program got underway—a 
special thanks to all of them. Appreciation is expressed to Don Davis, 

Inspector of the San Diego Police Department; James Gleason, Director of the 
City's Environmental Quality Department; Carol Tanner, Acoustical Engineer; 
and John Reese, Chief of the Civil Division, City Attorney's Office, for 
sharing their experiences and knowledge of the noise abatement program in San 
Diego. The authors also appreciate the information offered by the San Diego 
Chamber of Commerce and the Department of Public Information of the City of 
San Diego. 

The authors specifically acknowledge the fine technical project guidance 
of Dr. William Ellis, Vice President of Verve Research Corporation, and the 
technical support of Naomi Henderson, Consultant, and Cecily Robbins, Research 
Analyst. A special note of appreciation is directed to the efforts and 


v 


assiduous editing of this report, under Timothy Crawford's guidance, by 
Richard Peters and Marjorie Moore. Finally a special thanks to Yolande Baker, 
Virginia Walker, and Tijuana Burton, who conscientiously typed the contents. 

Support for this project was provided by the State and Local Programs 
Division of the Office of Noise Abatement and Control of the U.S. Environ¬ 
mental Protection Agency. 


Laszlo Boszormenyi 
Project Manager and Principal 
Investigator 


Lonnie R. Robbins 
Research Analyst 


vi 


Executive Summary 


This case history of the noise control program of San Diego, California, is 
one of four supporting an outreach technical assistance program, Each Community 
Helps Others (ECHO), of the Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The four case-history studies will 
provide the ECHO Program—whose goal is to have viable and quantitative noise 
control ordinances in 400 communities and 40 states throughout the United 
States by 1985—with the documented experience of communities that already 
have an on-going, successful, and outstanding noise control program. 

Basically, the San Diego study was based on onsite interviews conducted 
by a fact-finding team consisting of EPA and Verve personnel. The team inter¬ 
viewed more than 20 persons who helped to initiate the program, were currently 
part of the city’s legislature or administration, or had substantial knowledge 
of the program. 

San Diego has a unique combination of characteristics that, taken together, 
provided a compelling reason for the initiation of noise control legislation. 

The city has experienced an explosive growth during the last 15 years; it has 
one of the largest naval bases in the country; it has three major airports, 
one civilian airport adjoining downtown San Diego plus two military airports 
within city limits—all three amidst residential areas; it has five major 
superhighways traversing residential areas; it has a dog population twice that 
of the District of Columbia on a per capita basis; it has canyons that carry 
sound for 10 to 12 miles; and it has a noise nuisance problem associated with 
amplified electronic musical instruments in residential areas. Together, all 
of these create a high ambient noise level throughout the day and night. 

Such noise conditions provided sufficient incentive to form a task force 
of the Comprehensive Health Planning Association (under the leadership of 
Virginia Taylor), which proposed a Noise Abatement and Control Ordinance to 
the City Council of San Diego. The noise issue attracted an unusually large 
number of capable, interested, and enthusiastic professionals to investigate 
the impact of noise on health. Between January 1972 and March 1973, the task 
force carried out several spot-noise surveys throughout the city. They found 


vii 


that even in supposedly quiet residential areas noise levels were well above 
what was considered healthy. Issues such as the noise emitted by jet engine 
bays at Miramar Naval Air Station and the misleading statements concerning 
noise levels distributed by real estate groups were also investigated. The 
efforts of the task force resulted in recognition by the city legislators that 
noise was a major public issue in San Diego. 

This recognition represented the beginning of the legislative process. 

The ordinance proposed by the task force covered all known sources of noise, 
and, as a punitive action, even envisioned shutting-down factories for viola¬ 
tion of the noise ordinance. It became viable and enforceable under the 
guidance of two persons: one the current Administrator of the Office of Noise 
Abatement and Control; James E. Dukes, and the other was the Senior Acoustical 
Consultant for the Navy, Dr. Robert W. Young. Careful attention to detail 
insured the defensibility of the ordinance as an enforceable legal tool. It 
should also be noted, that the keen interest expressed by the members of the 
City Council prevented the ordinance from becoming a politically unacceptable 
or anti-business. The ordinance had a high likelihood of success, and was not 
one that would be challenged constantly in court. It was adopted by the City 
Council on September 4, 1973. Throughout the initial and the legislative 
processes, much publicity emphasizing noise as a health issue appeared in 
newspapers, and on radio and TV. The results of surveys were publicized show¬ 
ing that noise from aircraft, traffic, motorcycles, dog barking, and loud 
music accounted for over 67 percent of the problem. 

A native of San Diego, the first and current Administrator of the program 
has administered a relatively weak ordinance into a strong and efficient pro¬ 
gram. Ongoing noise programs with some ten city departments, the county, the 
Port, and with the municipalities in the county were established. Under the 
direction of the mayor, the council, and the appointed Noise Abatement and 
Control Board, the original ordinance was amended another revision proposed. 

The administration of the program is centered around the research and 
development concept, the Noise Office solves a problem by developing methods 
and implementing solutions. A complaint procedure, rather than punitive 
enforcement, is the key element. However, the threat of criminal prosecution 
is freely used in literature, hearings, and other communications with violators. 
Public education has been the program's strong support since its inception. 

This has included some 30 newspaper articles, 20 TV appearances by the Admin¬ 
istrator, question-and-answer phone-in radio programs, publication of a 
monthly newsletter, distribution of some 220,000 pamphlets inserted into water 
bills, 90,000 door hangers announcing violations in the violator's neighbor¬ 
hood, public notices, announcement of aircraft noise problems to potential 
home owners, provision of a list of qualified acousticians, noise-measuring 


viii 


equipment demonstrations, reading of the noise code when application is made 
for permits to operate noisy equipment (e.g., air conditioners), and the 
announcement of research results. 

The current ordinance was amended in November 1977, reflecting San Diego's 
experience with noise since September 1973. The current ordinance established 
the function, duties, and limits of the Administrator; the guidelines for 
issuing variances; the appeal process; and the creation, composition, and 
manner of conducting the business of the Noise Abatement and Control Board. 

Also, it establishes a City Noise Map based on Community Noise Equivalent 
Levels. It further establishes noise limits for day, evening, and night, by 
land-use zone, off and on-highway vehicles, watercraft, construction equipment, 
refuse vehicles, and public nuisances. It also establishes a noise violation 
as a misdemeanor and levies fines and imprisonment under the criminal statutes 
of the city. A proposed revision of the ordinance leans toward establishing 
additional quantitative standards as substantiative evidence in court. 

The ordinance is enforced through a complaint process and institutes 
procedures for other departments of the city. The complaint procedure works 
as follows. A written complaint must be registered with the Office and the 
complainant is requested, (but not required), to notify his or her neighbor of 
the intent to file a complaint. An initial warning is then sent by the Office 
to the violator, and if appropriate, the violator is apprised of acoustical 
firms as well as his right to apply for a noise variance. In effect, the noise 
variance is a stay of application of the code for the purpose of allowing the 
noise maker minimal necessary time for compliance. Then the complainant is 
notified of the initial steps taken. If a second complaint is received, an 
investigator takes sound level measurements, photographs, and polls residents 
in the area. If the investigator cannot resolve the matter in the field, then 
a hearing is set and conducted. If the defendant does not appear at the hear¬ 
ting, prosecution is initiated. 

The noise ordinance is also enforced in response to citizen complaints to 
the Mayor and council offices. Decisions of the Zoning Administration and the 
Planning Department are regularly reviewed for noise and land-use compatibility. 
Environmental Impact Reports that concern noise are also reviewed by the Noise 
Abatement and Control Administrator. Projects by the Transportation Depart¬ 
ment, such as widening roads, are routinely calculated for noise impact 
exposure. Building permits for multi-unit housing, motels, and the like, miist 
carry the approval stamp of the Administrator. Close cooperation with the 
Aquatic Division and the Police Department have resulted in a formalized and 
smooth-running noise control procedure. The office has also worked with the 
U.S. Border Patrol, the military, the airport, and the Comprehensive Planning 
Organization (CPO) in updating transportation noise contours. 


ix 


Three case studies summarize the procedures, philosophy, and intent of the 
Noise Office: a city hospital, a barking dog complaint, and a commercial 
establishment near a residential zone. 

The Noise Office has mailed an estimated 7,700 complaint registration 
forms during 1977, of which 2,320 were completed and returned. Conversations 
with those requesting these forms indicate that by simply showing the complaint 
registration form and threatening to send it in to the Noise Abatement and 
Control Office induces voluntary compliance. Approximately 1,247 field invest¬ 
igations were conducted and 190 hearings held. In 15 out of 30 cases for which 
warrants to appear in Arraignment Court were issued, the defendants complied 
prior to their appearance date and the case was dismissed. Convictions or 
guilty pleas were received in all of the remaining fifteen cases requiring 
actual prosecution. Of the complaints received, 85 percent concerned dog 
barking, 5 percent concerned music, 2 percent concerned early morning construc¬ 
tion, 2 percent concerned roosters crowing, 2 percent concerned motorcycles, 
and 4 percent concerned miscellaneous noise. In addition, reviews were made 
of 2,500 home occupational permits, 150 environmental impact reports, 35 cases 
for the Transportation Department, and 600 building plans. 

The currently approved budget for the Noise Office is $104,079; salaries 
representing $84,897, equipment and other expenses, $19,182. The Noise Office 
is budgeted for an administrator, an assistant, an investigator, and two 
clerical staff members. It is expected that the program will continue to 
operate in the future under substantially the same budgetary, organizational, 
and administrative arrangements. 

Projected activities for the Noise Office include: a proposal to transfer 
the dog barking problem to the Animal Control Department; proposals to the 
State regarding municipal noise regulations, aircraft noise, and airport land 
use regulations; additional cable TV programs concerning noise problems; and 
proposals for acquiring time-averaging sound level equipment. 

The success of the noise program in San Diego can be attributed to a 
, realistic enforceable ordinance. There are a number of possible ways to meas¬ 
ure the success of any noise program. However, in San Diego success may be 
measured by achievement of solutions to problems. The impact of noise on 
people is clearly being reduced: new buildings are quieter, noisy motor boats 
are being eliminated, land-use planning is working, and the noise impact of 
Miramar is diminished. There is a noise control consciousness within the 
administrative machinery of the city; city departments look at noise as a 
serious condition. The program is successfully solving short-range problems 
such as barking dogs, amplified music, noisy trucks, and swimming pool pumps; 
not only by establishing tools to deal with the problem, but also by winding 
down tension in neighborhoods and providing a place for people to go to 


x 


complain. There is cooperation among city departments and other jurisdictions 
within the county. The ordinance is constantly evolving, embracing more and 
more areas (such as the California laws) to widen and decentralize the program 
while maintaining expertise within the Noise Office. 


xi 




Contents 


The San Diego Region. iv 

Acknowledgements. v 

Executive Summary. vii 

Contents. xii 

List of Exhibits. xvii 

1 Introduction. 1 

Objective of the ECHO Program. 1 

Methodology for the San Diego Case Study. 1 

Relevant Characteristics of the City of San Diego. 2 

2 Initiation of the Noise Program. 7 

Conditions Before the Program. 7 

Factors Leading to Program Commencement. 8 

Publicity. 11 

3 Legislative Process. 13 

Ordinance Proposed by the Task Force. 13 

Ordinance Adopted by the City Council. 14 

4 Administration of the Noise Program. 18 

Operating Philosophy of the Noise Administration. 18 

Structure and Legal Position of the Office of Noise 

Abatement and Control. 20 

Public Education. 20 

Media Coverage. 21 

Noise Ordinance Distribution. 22 

Monthly Newsletters. 22 

Water Utility Bill Inserts. 22 

Door Hangers. 22 

Public Notices. 26 

Homeowner Information. 26 

Qualified Acousticians. 26 

Research and Development Results. 26 


xiii 































5 San Diego Noise Abatement and Control Ordinance. 30 

Municipal Noise Ordinance....,. 30 

Division 1. General. 31 

Division 2. Administration. 32 

Division 3. Noise Abatement and Control Compliance. 34 

Division 4. Limits. 34 

Division 5. Public Nuisance Noise. 37 

Division 6. Violations and Enforcement. 38 

Future Plans and Improvements. 38 

6 Enforcement. 40 

Enforcement Guidelines/Philosophy. 40 

Enforcement Procedure. 41 

Complaint Procedure. 41 

Coordination of Noise Control Activities with other City 

Departments and Agencies. 59 

Case Studies. 72 

Case I: Exeessive Hospital Equipment Noise. 72 

Case II: Barking Dog Complaint. 73 

Case III: Noisy Commercial Establishment. 74 

State of California Laws Enforced. 75 

Equipment. 76 

Statistics of Enforcement. 76 

7 Budget. 81 

8 Program Evaluation. 83 

Accomplishments. 83 

Unresolved Issues,.../ . 85 

Future Plans. 86 

Footnotes. 88 

Appendix A 

Persons Interviewed and Other Sources of Information. A-l 

Appendix B 

Noise Task Force Members. B-l 

Appendix C 

Minutes and Agendas of the Noise Task Force (Selected). C-l 

Appendix D 

San Diego Ordinance Publicity. D-l 

Appendix E 

Public Notice. E-l 

Appendix F 

City of San Diego, Engineering Department, Conference 

Notes (Selected). F-l 




xiv 



































Appendix G 

Representative Newspaper Article Educating the Public 

Concerning Noise. G-l 

Appendix H 

San Diego Municipal Noise Control Ordinance. H-l 

Appendix I 

Office of Noise Abatement and Control Newsletter. 1-1 

Appendix J 

List of Approved Acousticians. J-l 

Appendix K 

Noise Impact Analysis Report on Proposed Road Improvements.... K-l 
Appendix L 

Noise Impact Analysis Report on Elementary School Affected 

by Street Traffic . L-l 

Appendix M 

Newspaper Article on Enforcement Activities of the 

Aquatics Division. M-l 


xv 








21. Examples of Transportation Noise Contour 

Limits (Continued). 63 

21. Traffic Flow Map. 64 

22. Notice for Accoustical Analysis Report. 65 

23. Example of Accoustical Analysis Report. 66 

23. Example of Accoustical Analysis Report (Continued). 67 

23. Example of Accoustical Analysis Report (Continued). 68 

24. Approval or Disapproval Stamp Used for Building Plans. 69 

25. Estimated 1977 Workload Breakdown. 77 

26. Breakdown of Complaints Received by Types. 78 


xviii 











Introduction 


Objective of the 
ECHO Program 


Methodology for the 
San Diego Case Study 


This study will serve as a program tool to support ECHO, whose purpose is to 
provide technical assistance to State and local noise control and abatement 
programs. The specific objective of ECHO is to arrange for managers of 
developed, effective, and on-going local noise control programs to assist 
other communities in starting successful noise control programs. These mana¬ 
gers or, as they are called in the ECHO program. Community Noise Advisors (CNA), 
will provide advice and assistance to other communities by using ONAC's assis¬ 
tance and relying on tools such as the case histories documented in this report. 
ECHO's stated objective is to start local noise control programs in 400 com¬ 
munities and 40 States by 1985, including as a minimum: 

• Noise control ordinances incorporating quantitative standards; 

• Adequately trained personnel and budget; 

• An on-going, effective enforcement program; and 

• A State technical assistance program for locals. 

Examination of the above-described ECHO framework implies that well- 
documented case histories describing the successful experience of other com¬ 
munities will provide real assistance to the CNAs, who ultimately will be 
responsible for starting successful programs in each of the 400 communities 
and 40 States selected throughout the United States. The desire to have docu¬ 
mented and actual experience of communities was expressed on several occasions 
to members of the research team during the interview phase of the San Diego 
case study. It was considered the most effective tool for conveying, in a 
substantial and sufficiently detailed manner, the experience of cities and 
States in initiating and carrying out successful noise control programs 
themselves. 

San Diego, California was selected by ONAC, based on an on-going and outstand¬ 
ing noise control program. The methodology for the case study is described in 
the following paragraphs. 

EPA's project manager announced the selection of San Diego as a case study 
city in a letter to the city manager and requested assistance for the selection 
of a fact-finding team. 


1 


With the assistance of the San Diego noise abatement and control adminis¬ 
trator, interviews were arranged in advance with knowledgeable persons in and 
outside of the noise program. During the 4-day visit, the team was introduced, 
and was offered access to the photograph and graphics collection of the city of 
San Diego, which could be beneficial to the development of a sound-on-slide 
show. 

The objective of the trip was to interview a cross section of persons 

either initially involved or currently active in the noise abatement and con- 

/ 

trol program of the city. Most of the information was obtained from interviews 
with the following groups, as well as from several written sources (both types 
of sources are referenced in Appendix A): 

• The Noise Control Administrator 

• The Police Department 

• The entire County Noise Control Board called in session for the sole 
purpose of being interviewed by the fact-finding team 

• The Environmental Quality Department 

• An acoustical engineer 

• The City Attorney’s Office 

• Senior planners from the city and the county of San Diego 

• A complete noise abatement hearing 

• The city photographer 

• Senior planners and the airport manager from the San Diego Unified Port 
District, operator of the San Diego International Airport 

• The Chamber of Commerce 

• The Comprehensive Planning Organization of the San Diego Region 

From discussions with representatives of the organizations identified, an 
accurate analysis of the San Diego noise abatement program was made. Insight 
was provided into areas such as program initiation, the legislative process, 
early publicity given to the program, current quantitative noise standards, 
and the enforcement status of the State of California noise abatement laws. 
Also, a complete documentation of the current administration of the program, 
its budget, its enforcement, and planned future activities was made. 

It is important to highlight a few of the socioeconomic, topographic, and 
governmental characteristics of the city, since they have a direct bearing on 
the noise issue in San Diego. Some examples follow. 

(1) Publication of noise literature in Spanish (in addition to English, of 

course) by the Noise Abatement and Control Board can be explained by not 
only the ethnic origin of a portion of the population, but also the 
historical connection of the city with the country of Mexico. 


Relevant Character¬ 
istics of the City 
of San Diego 


2 


( 2 ) 


An "intrusive impact of an everyday community noise problem"-*- can be 
caused by a dog population that, on a per capita basis, is more than 
twice that of the District of Columbia.^ 

(3) The configuration of the terrain, including canyons, does present special 
noise problems. 

(4) The structure of the city government facilitates a high degree of commun¬ 
ication on noise issues among the Noise Abatement and Control Board, 
industry, citizen groups, citizens, and elected representatives of the 
city. 

(5) Four interstates and one other major highway pass through residential 
areas for the entire length of the city. 

This section will discuss briefly some of these characteristics. 

The beginnings of the area in which the city is located originate in 1542, 
when a Portuguese explorer claimed the land for the King of Spain. The area 
was named San Diego 60 years later by a Spanish explorer. Colonization began 
in 1769 when the first California mission was established in the area as 
Presidio Hill. San Diego remained under the flag of Mexico until 1848; it was 
incorporated as a city on March 27, 1850 (population less than 731), the year 
California became a State. After trying several different forms of government, 
voters (population 154,000) adopted the present city charter in 1931, estab¬ 
lishing the council-manager form of government under which the city operates 
3 

today. 

The city is located in the county of San Diego (approximately the size of 

Connecticut) in the southernmost tip of California; its western boundary 

extends 70 miles along the Pacific Ocean and inland to the east for 80 miles 

(having an area of 4,255 square miles). The city occupies the southernmost 

portion of the county along the Pacific Ocean, and borders on Tijuana, Mexico. 

4 

It consists of 319.5 square miles or 204,466 acres. 

San Diego is a city of mesas, canyons, beaches, and natural bays, and has 
an elevation that ranges from sea level to 1,591 feet.^ The topography of the 
city is important to note, since sound orginating from motorcycles, jet engines, 
helicopters, military test bays, and other sources travels along canyons for 
considerably longer distances than over flat land, thus affecting populated 
areas all along these canyon areas. 

San Diego is the eleventh largest city in the United States, its estimated 
population on January 1, 1977, being 802,800 or approximately one-half that of 
the county (1,656,800).^ The 204,466 acres of land in the city are zoned as 
shown in Exhibit 1. A special census for 1975 showed that, of the total 


1. All footnotes are given at the end of the text. 


3 



population, 62,295 lived in an off-base military area. The population of the 
entire city (including military) had the racial and ethnic characteristics 
shown in Exhibit 2. 


Exhibit 1 


Land Use of the Area of the City 

Land Use 

Percentage 

Residential 

17.71 

Commercial 

2.22 

Industrial 

3.46 

Public (parks, military, public schools, etc.) 

20.87 

Semipublic (churches, hospitals, etc.) 

1.56 

Agricultural 

16.05 

Vacant 

26.29 

Streets 

11.84 

Total 

100.00 

Exhibit 2 


Racial and Ethnic Origin of the City's Population 

Origin 

Percentage 

White 

80.54 

Black 

7.46 

Latino 

8.09 

American Indian 

.29 

Filipino 

1.90 

Japanese 

.40 

Chinese 

.33 

Other Asian 

.31 

Other 

.68 

Total 

100.00 


4 










As mentioned, the city operates under the council-manager form of govern¬ 
ment. The significance of this form of government is that the eight City 
Council members (each representing a voting district of the city) have control 
over the city manager, thereby ensuring a more responsive administration. The 
reason for this responsiveness is that the voters elect a nonpartisan City 
Council, which acts as the city's legislative and policymaking body. The city 
manager in turn is elected by the Council and serves as the chief adminis¬ 
trator, implementing the programs and policies adopted by the Council. The 
Planning Department Director reports to a Planning Commission appointed by the 
Mayor and Council. Decisions by the Planning Commission can be appealed to 
the Mayor and Council. The Mayor is a voting member of the City Council but 
does not have veto power. His role is that of primary spokesman for the city; 

he is nominated and elected at large, makes numerous public appearances, and 

9 

makes recommendations to the City Council. 

On the other hand, each City Council member is elected by and represents 
the citizens in his or her district. The City Council is the governing and 
legislative body responsible for the city's laws, policies, and programs. By 
charter, the City Council appoints the city manager; approves contracts, 
ordinances, and resolutions; sets the tax rate; adopts the annual budget; and 
makes or confirms appointments to various city boards and commissions. It 
also meets as the San Diego Housing Authority and the San Diego Redevelopment 

A 10 

Agency. 

The significance of this form of government relative to the noise issue is 
that it appeared to the fact finding team that intercommunication between the 
administrator, citizen groups, and the Council was effective. It seems that 
the Administrator communicates regularly with the Council in session at its 
request. Individual members of the Council are fully aware, on an almost daily 
basis, of issues concerning noise. Citizen groups active in noise are continu¬ 
ously updating Council members on current issues. Prominent citizens with a 
noise-oriented technical background seem to have the ear of legislators, and 
their ideas are readily communicated to the administrator and other department 
heads dealing with noise. Exhibit 3 presents an organizational chart of the 
city government. 

The city is a member of the Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO) of 
the San Diego Region. The CPO is a Council of Governments for the San Diego 
region and has a number of noise-related programs representing the 13 incorpo¬ 
rated cities and San Diego County. The California Department of Transportation 
is an ex-officio member, while the city of Tijuana, Mexico, is a honorary 
member.^ 


5 


Exhibit 3 


Administrative Organization Chart: 

1977 


City of San Diego 


12 



6 
































































































































































Initiation of the Noise Program 


Conditions Before 
the Program 


The purpose of this section is to describe the events that led to the enact¬ 
ment of the ordinance controlling noise in the city. It discusses how noise 
as a problem was rated by the general population, and how noise was rated as 
one of the many environmental issues. It describes the prior status of the 
noise issue and the people who were involved in making noise problems known. 
Whether because they felt it was a health issue or because it provided a 
political platform, an able group cared to attack an environmental issue that 
was of great public concern in the early 1970's. And thereby, what was essen¬ 
tially a health issue was turned into a city ordinance by using the city's 
political process. Admittedly the political process was filled with com¬ 
promises, and it produced a weak ordinance. Yet the noise ordinance was work¬ 
able and accepted by all, and it served as a vehicle to the development of a 
comprehensive and effective noise program only 3 years after its enactment. 

According to the current director of the Environmental Quality Department 
(EQD), the specific noise issues of the city prior to the program consisted of 
nuisance factors: barking dogs, loud music on buses, transportation noise from 

13 

aircraft engines, highway motor vehicles, and motorcycles. In the words of 
Councilman Hubbard, "There are just an awful lot of people in San Diego who 
love dogs, resulting in a dog population of close to 200,000".^ Noise from 
motorcycles was a great problem, because San Diego has reverberant canyons 
with housing banked against the walls. 

A survey specified transportation noise as the most important single 
source of noise pollution. This conclusion is readily understandable, since 
five major highways span the entire length of the city, mainly through residen¬ 
tial areas, generating a high level of ambient noise 24 hours a day. Added to 
this is noise made by overflight and landing/take-off of jet aircraft. 

The city has one major commercial airport, Lindbergh Field or San Diego 
International Airport, located in the center of the city and surrounded by 
approximately 30,000 housing units, which, on the average, are within 4,000 
feet of the closest point of the runway. Expressed differently, 30,000 hous¬ 
ing units are exposed to daily overflight of approximately 200 aircraft at 


7 


altitudes of less than 220 feet."^ In addition to Lindbergh Field there are 
two major military airports, both of which present noise problems. They are 
the U.S. Naval Air Station located on North Island in San Diego Bay and 
Miramar Naval Air Station located near the suburb of Miramar. 


Factors Leading to 
Program Commencement 


During September 1971 primary mayoral campaign, noise was used among other 
issues as part of a candidate's platform. She interpreted the results of a 
noise attitudinal survey sponsored by the Comprehensive Planning Organization 
(CPO) as a political problem. 

The survey of some 4,000 households in San Diego established a definite 
adverse attitude on the part of the population toward noise. Some 64.7 percent 
of the respondents perceived that noise pollution, defined as loud or prolonged 
noises, was a problem in their neighborhoods or in other areas. Of that per¬ 
centage, 66.7 percent felt that noise pollution was a medium or large problem. 

Extrapolating these percentages to the city's households and population 
means that 326,000 people, or 41 percent of the city's population in 1971, 
perceived noise as a problem. Furthermore, 40.4 percent of the respondents 
felt that the government was not taking sufficient action to prevent and con¬ 
trol noise pollution .^ 

That survey clearly established noise as a major problem requiring further 
attention. Shortly after the mayoral campaign in December 1971, a Noise Task 
Force of the Environmental Health Committee of the Comprehensive Health Planning 
Association (CHPA) of San Diego and Imperial Counties was established to outline 
strategy and to establish goals and methods. This task force represented the 
first organized effort to abate noise. 

The intent of the Task Force was not to draw up legislation, but to invest¬ 
igate whether there were any health problems associated with noise—hence the 
involvement of the CHPA. Also, CHPA provided a focal point for the group, as 
well as clerical support. It was thought that serious health effects might 
result from noise pollution. And at that time people were beginning to be 
aware the environment posed health problems in general. 

Actual work by the task force began in January 1972, with Virginia Taylor 
as chairwoman. The uniqueness of the task force was its composition. It 
brought together a cross section of people such as physicists, physicians, 
engineers, psychologists, audiologists, housewives, medical and law students, 
acousticians, attorneys, private citizens of San Diego, environmentalists and 
chemists representing the universities, the professions, and the Armed Forces. 
The membership roster of the task force is presented in Appendix B. 

The task force began its work on the premise that if the public is educated 
it will quickly realize that noise is one of the most harmful pollutants to man. 


8 


Harm goes beyond hearing loss, which is considered only a minor part. Injury 

18 

to the body, the nonaudio effect, is far worse. 

The persons most prominent in the task force have also stayed active in 

19 

the noise program to this day. Thus, 

• Virginia Taylor is currently the chairwoman of the San Diego County 
Noise Control Hearing Board (County Board). 

• Lucy Pryde, environmental chemist, is currently the research person 
for noise with the Sierra Club in the city. 

• Maureen Smith is chairwoman of the San Diego County War Against Litter. 

• Carol Sue Tanner, M.E., acoustical engineer, is a partner in San Diego 
Acoustics, Inc., a firm providing consulting services to builders need¬ 
ing to conform with the city's noise code. 

• Dr. Robert Gales, acoustical physicist, is with the Naval Undersea 
Research and Development Center. 

• Dr. Robert W. Young, world-n nowned acoustical physicist, is with the 
Naval Undersea Research and Development Center and is also a member of 
the Board for the Abatement and Control of Noise for the City of San 
Diego (City Board). 

• Maurice Schiff, M.D., known for his research in nonauditory effects of 
noise, is currently practicing medicine in the city. 

• Ardetta Steiner is a citizen activist. 

Described next is the work of the task force from January 1972 to April 
1973, a 16-month period during which the task force carried the fight against 
noise pollution on its own. During that period, the task force acted as a 
citizen group without any mandate from a government organization. According 
to Virginia Taylor, the task force did raise a lot of money; however, most of 
the work was done on a voluntary basis by professional or student groups. 

During that period the task force carried on its work in monitoring noise 
levels, investigating noise issues, seeking publicity for the noise cause, and 
drawing up and designing an ordinance. The first step of the task force after 
its official formation on January 6, 1972, was to monitor noise at various 
locations in the city. 

One survey carried out at Montgomery General Aviation Airport showed that 
residents were more irritated by loud construction noise than by airplanes. 
Studies undertaken at the Union Valley Shopping Center, at San Diego State 
University, and at a location downtown showed that 80 to 90 decibels of noise 
were irritating to most people, but that this varied with individuals and 
circumstances. A study sponsored by the La Jolla Kiwanis Club showed that 
even in a supposedly quiet community, noise levels were well above what was 
considered healthy. The surveys were made at representative sites with bor¬ 
rowed equipment. The surveys were conducted by students from the local 


9 


University. These surveys were used to urge legislation, and they helped to 
convince a member of the City Council of the need for an ordinance. 

Besides the surveys, the task force realized that a more concentrated 
effort was needed to bring about quantitative noise legislation. (The accom¬ 
plishments of the task force are documented in the minutes of its meetings. 

The minutes of four representative meetings held during the above mentioned 
16-month period are included as Appendix C.) Thus, as a next step, the task 
force undertook the investigation of individual noise issues in the city. 

One of the major issues was the noise generated by jet engine bays at 
Miramar Naval Air Station. Because of air currents and inversion conditions, 
and the lay of the land, this noise traveled as far as 10 to 12 miles. Test¬ 
ing was also conducted at night, the Navy said, in durations of 10 seconds to 
several minutes, generating sound levels far in excess of acceptable standards. 

The task force also found that the Subdivision Public Reports issued by 
the State Department of Real Estate made unsatisfactory and misleading state¬ 
ments concerning the noise insulation for single-family homes in new sub¬ 
divisions near Miramar. The task force, with the approval of the State 
attorney general, put together descriptions of noise and its effects that were 
subsequently included in a full-disclosure statement. The disclosure state¬ 
ment included information on noise levels; what noise level information means; 
that Miramar-originated noise occurs day and night; and that 8 inches of insula¬ 
tion did not provide sufficient protection against noise. As soon as adequate 
disclosure of existing and projected noise problems was publicized in the Sub¬ 
division Public Reports and in the newspaper, concern was expressed by groups 

20 

and individuals in the city. 

The task force also established a Speakers Bureau on Noise to make speakers 
available to communities, schools, and adult groups. Other issues taken up were 
aircraft noise from overflights, noise associated with municipal service, the 
impact of noise on children, and the need for development of a San Diego noise 
impact map. 

From its inception, one of the primary purposes of the task force was to 
bring about quantitative legislation. As early as February 1972, a request 
for liaison with the city to recommend a noise ordinance was sent to the 
director of the Department of Community Development. Also the California 
Model Ordinance and EPA documents were examined, along with ordinances of other 
cities such as Chicago. 

By March 1973, results of task force work were enough to convince Council¬ 
man Bates to adopt the noise issue and introduce new quantitative noise control 
legislation to the Council (Appendix D). Councilman Bates, a new and young 
member of the City Council, provided the initial spark to have the Council 


10 


address the noise issue and instruct the city manager at least to discuss the 
new ordinance with members of the task force. 

The ordinance introduced by Councilman Bates in the spring of 1973 covered 
all known sources of noise in San Diego; however, it drew immediate opposition 
from builders, the construction industry, the airlines, the airport, and the 
automobile interests. (These issues are discussed in the next section.) The 
proposal drew considerably more opposition from the City Attorney's Office and 
from legal counsel representing industry than it did from industry spokesmen. 
The proposal represented in some instances the taking of property without due 
process. Since the proposal was drafted without the benefit of legal counsel, 
it is not too surprising that it contained language in conflict with the United 
States Constitution. The City Council and the City Attorney's Office attempted 
to codify the intent and spirit expressed in the proposal within the framework 
of legal doctrine. The weakness of the ordinance was associated with the dif¬ 
ficulties of regulating citizen activity by law within the confines of the 
United States Constitution. It was difficult under these constraints to write 
successful legislation which would have been more restrictive. And this is 
the reality and the frustration of administration and enforcement of the 
ordinance. Although the ordinance was weak, it became one of the most success¬ 
ful noise abatement programs in the country: by amendments, administrative 
skills, and through coordination with other departments of the city. State, 
and independent agencies. 

Publicity Most of the publicity before the enactment of the ordinance was carried out 

and sponsored by the task force. Councilman Bates was convinced that the 

noise problem was widely recognized by San Diego residents, as established by 

21 

opinion polls, health statistics, and literature. 

The first milestone in the publicity campaign conducted by the task force 

was Dr. Schiff's presentation in a Rome, Italy noise conference early in 1973. 

Portions of this presentation were carried worldwide by the press and picked 

up by the news media in San Diego. His premise was that nonauditory effects 

of sound were far more dangerous than hearing damage. He advocated that noise 

be thought of not as "sound" but as a "stressor" such as any other organ is 

exposed to if abused, e.g., visual stress, auditory stress, and thermal stress. 

He also stated that noise stress is cumulative, and that the sum total of the 

22 

damage done to the human body is greater than its parts. 

The publicity campaign of the task force was designed to counteract the 

resistance generated by industry. In this fight, the umbrella provided by 

CHPA, as the focal point, was important to the task force in obtaining press, 

23 

radio, and TV coverage. 


11 


The noise surveys mentioned previously were performed with as much 
publicity as the task force could obtain. The local newspapers and TV were 
quite cooperative. Public announcements were made of task force meetings. 
Members of the task force went on a 2-hour phone-in radio program on noise 
problems, and a similar TV program was also conducted. The newspapers also 
picked up the noise issue. Other publicity included news releases from Jim 
Bates' office and TV editorial statements. 

As previously mentioned, in 1971 the population thought that transporta¬ 
tion noise was the most annoying—specifically aircraft and highway noise. 

An opinion survey made in June 1975 showed that aircraft and motor vehicles 
(cars, buses, and trucks) still headed the noise problem list. In this survey 
carried out by an independent California corporation and from 300 telephone 
interviews between June 13-27, 1975, sources of noise problems in neighborhoods 
were identified. They are given in Exhibit 4. 

Exhibit 4 

Percentage of Respondents Identifying 
Noise Problems by Source24 


Source 

Percentage 

Aircraft 

17 

Traffic 

17 

Motorcycles 

14 

Dogs barking 

11 

Loud music 

8 

Construction 

1 

Trash pick-up 

1 

Other 

1 

Don't know 

30 


100 


12 







Legislative Process 


Ordinance Proposed 
by the Task Force 


Recognizing that the noise issue was a genuine public concern the political 
forces in the city took control of the citizens' efforts and turned the noise 
issue into a viable ordinance. Also documented are how the opponents (con¬ 
struction industry, airlines, and the like) of the proposed legislation were 
able to retain the status quo by threatening to fight a strong new law in the 
courts (were such a law passed). 

The period described in this section extends from approximately March 1973 to 
September 1973, when the City Council adopted Article 9.5, Noise Abatement and 
Control, of the San Diego Municipal Code. During this time, a great deal of 
political maneuvering took place. 

In March 1973 public notice, the task force argued against enactment of 
the ordinance because it was found "that the ordinance sponsored by the City 
[in response to Councilman Bates' proposal] has been so modified as to be 
useless and even detrimental for its intended purpose." (The public notice is 
presented in Appendix E.) Public rejection of the ordinance by the task force 
generated enough publicity so that the Council instructed the administrative 
machinery of the city to institute a series of meetings between task force 
members and the city government. These meetings took place between April and 
May 1973 and are documented in Appendix F. 

These meetings represented a genuine effort on the part of the city admin¬ 
istration to turn the proposed ordinance into a viable and enforceable one and 
to present it to the City Council. The meetings were usually attended by the 
Mayor's representative, one councilman, Jim Bates' representative, and repre¬ 
sentatives of departments and agencies such as airport, city attorney, policy, 
building inspection, planning, environmental quality, and health and safety. 

Each issue in the ordinance proposed by the task force was examined for 
legal ramifications, preemptions by State laws, and jurisdictional problems. 
These issues were as follows: 


13 


Potential Problems Foreseen by City Staff 


Issues Proposed by Task Force 

• Airport noise • 

• Noise Advisory Board • 

• Noise abatement administrator • 

• Appeals board • 


• Watercraft • 


• Authority of the ordinance • 

• Regulation of noise emitted • 

by military aircraft 

• Vehicle noise • 


• Building noise control • 

standards 


• Placing time limits on con- • 

struction activities, includ¬ 
ing the use of equipment 

• Noise limits on transit buses • 


Possible preemption by State and 
Federal Governments 

Appointment by lottery is in violation 
of the City Charter 

Will the appointment be made by city 
manager or department head? 

Same comments as on Noise Advisory 
Board. Should it be one man with a 
citation book? Will it have ability 
to subpoena? Should responsibility 
for monitoring be given to firemen or 
policemen? 

This overlaps jurisdiction of the San 
Diego Unified Port District, an inde¬ 
pendent authority administering the 
Lindbergh Field and water areas. 

Task force envisioned penalties of 
even shutting down factories and other 
industries. 

The potential avoidance of noise laws 
by the military, based on National 
Defense. 

According to the State Vehicle Code, 
as interpreted by the State attorney 
general, California cities cannot 
regulate vehicle noise. 

The building inspection department 
wanted to develop a separate ordinance 
which would have been incorporated 
in the proposed ordinance only by 
reference. 

Resistance by the industry and the 
threat of prolonged court fights. 

Inability of the city to comply. 


Ordinance Adopted by 
the City Council 


By May 1973, it was clear to the Council that no viable and enforceable 
ordinance was in sight. After much of the objectionable material in the pro¬ 
posed ordinance was removed, a municipal ordinance was adopted by the City 
Council on September 4, 1973. The period between May and September was 




14 





crucial for several reasons. New personalities were introduced; the role of 
the task force diminished to an inconsequential level; industry put in motion 
all of its forces to obtain its point of view; and a new ordinance was obtained 

A new, relatively unknown from the Environmental Quality Department was 
named by the City Manager's representative to compile inputs to the draft 
ordinance. The person was James Dukes, who was later appointed as the first 
Noise Abatement and Control Administrator, the job currently held. Another 
new person entering the noise issue in May 1973 was a representative of the 
Construction Industry Coordinating Council (CICC), which was sponsored by the 
Associate General Contractors of America, the Building Contractors Association, 
and the Trenching Contractors Association. This representative had a great 
deal to do with formulation of the ordinance and as representative of the third 
voting district of San Diego, Lee Hubbard is now serving his second term as 
Councilman.^ 

The specific issues the industry fought against during the 3 months preced 

ing the adoption of the ordinance by the Council are discussed below. The 

airlines fought a proposed tax on heavy noisemakers, which would have included 

them. The idea was to pay $2 per ticketed passenger for the convenience of 

using a close-to-downtown airport. The revenue collected would have gone for 

noise control purposes such as insulating hospitals, schools, etc. Also, a 

midnight to 6 a.m. curfew was unpopular with the airlines, as was an attempt 

26 

to cut back the number of flights to and from San Diego. 

During the same period, the Air Transport Association started a lawsuit 
claiming that the Port had no jurisdiction over airplane noise in the air. 

The suit was primarily against the State because of its regulations, but the 
Port was included because it was installing its noise-monitoring program in 
conformance with those regulations. 

The construction industry attacked the proposed ordinance from several 
points of view. First, the industry foresaw a great impact on the city's 
budget to support enforcement of the ordinance, and suggested that the city 
manager be alerted to possible annual costs. Second, the industry wanted a 
building contractor included on the board. Third, the sound level limits 
proposed were much lower than those in San Francisco and Orange County 
ordinances, and were lower than needed to protect health. Ambient levels 
that were too low could bring about inverse condemnation, inasmuch as they 
could preclude the use of property. 

The industry was also concerned over the application of noise level 
measurements to the property line and stated that a residential area about to 
be developed might find itself obliged to install noise insulation standards 
because of the ambient noise of a shopping center next door, for example. The 


15 


} 


industry suggested that the ambient noise measured would be only that emanating 
from the property in question. 

The opinion of the industry was that the section on fixed and nonstationary 
sources of noise as written in the proposed ordinance would stop all construc¬ 
tion within 12 months, and that contractors would fight it in court if necessary. 

Also, to protect residential areas against the arbitrary application of 
noise insulation standards (which would greatly increase the cost of houses), 
the industry recommended that sound level limits be enforced through the 
designation of noise control zones rather than by building standards alone. 

The construction industry still considered noise as a regional rather than 
a local issue and strongly recommended that the ordinance be held in abeyance 
until the 13 communities in the area agreed (possible under CPO auspicies) on 
an ordinance that would apply equally throughout the county. 

The San Diego Gas and Electric Company felt the levels were too low and 
was particularly concerned, like CICC, about the fact that noise would be 
measured at the boundary and that the lower sound level would apply. The 
utility company wanted to have this changed, particularly after a test of their 
transformers showed that there would be conflicts. Certain residential area 
transformers were found to exceed the proposed allowable sound level. Under 
the ordinance, the utility company may have been required to build a structure 
around such transformers, the expense of which would be prohibitive. The 
utility company therefore requested higher noise levels for the ordinance. 

It was quite clear that the construction and other industries would not 
let pass the ordinance as proposed by the task force. The ordinance was 
reworked and reformulated to conform to the objective of the administration, 
i.e., to produce a viable and enforceable ordinance, In June 1973, the City 
Council received a proposed ordinance that omitted almost all of the clauses 
that were objectionable to industry, with the following effects: 

• The powers of the administrator were diluted, 

• The minimum staff proposed was reduced. 

• A proposed larger budget was cut down to $25,000 for the first 9 
months, 

• The proposed direct report to the Council was deleted, being in con¬ 
flict with the city management form of government, 

• Specification of definite noise limits for off-highway vehicles was 
mod ified, 

• Quantitative limitations for the construction industry were lessened 
considerably, and 

• All references to aircraft noise were deleted. 

Basically the Council wanted on ordinance with a high likelihood of suc- 

, . 27 

cess, that is, one that would be successful if challenged in court. 


16 



A number of other cities were contacted to see what they had been doing 

in their noise programs. Ultimately, the city followed the municipal standards 

28 

based on the recommendations of the League of California City Standards. 

The basic points of the city's philosophy are: 

(1) The ordinance should strongly advocate compliance rather than 
punishment. 

(2) It is an inviolate principle of the administrator that the source of 
noise regulation should not be in the municipal ordinance since it 
is a Federal responsibility. Should such a municipal ordinance 
exist, the manufacturers would be glad to comply by providing equip¬ 
ment at a certain multiple of the standard price. Such a regulation 

would subject industry to an unreasonable cost and would not be 

29 

economically viable. 

(3) Noise levels set at property boundaries should be associated with 

zoning for land use. Basically, the ordinance used the guidelines 

recommended by the International Standards Organization together with 

30 

EPA recommendations, which were new at that time. 


(4) 

(5) 


The noise ordinance should not be monitored, i.e., 

31 


no one should walk 

n 

around with a citation book." 

The vast majority of construction and utility projects will sometimes 

exceed the ordinance limits, as will noise from sport stadium events, 

motor boat races, transit buses, and other sources. On a day-to-day 

basis, there is no way that industry will always be able to meet the 

32 

terms of the ordinance. 

(6) The ordinance does not eliminate construction equipment noise (nor 

does it need to be eliminated). The construction industry will 

33 

ignore the ordinance completely. 

(7) The city must have a noise control ordinance. Quality of life is 

rated high in San Diego and the noise problem is an important issue. 

A noise ordinance should protect people in residential areas from 

34 

barking dogs, loud stereo systems, and so forth. 

The new ordinance was adopted by the City Council on September 4, 1973. 

Jim Dukes was appointed as the Acting Noise Abatement and Control Administrator 
on October 19, 1973, the effective date of enactment. 


17 


Administration of the Noise Program 


This section describes the full administrative extent of the program and shows 
the general administrative concepts, the involvement of other departments and 
agencies, and the relationship among departments. How the public is made aware 
of the noise abatement program is also discussed. 


Operating Philosophy 
of the Noise 
Administration 


The basic operating concept of the Administrator has been to make the office a 

research and development center, with more emphasis on development. The idea 

is to encourage other departments to bring their problems to the office so as 

to centralize the issue. The noise office solves the problem instead of trying 

35 

to develop a problem-solving capability in other departments. All aspects 

of the noise program are handled and it is recognized that it is far better to 

utilize the existing skills in other departments such as the City Attorney's 

3 6 

Office and Police Department for routine enforcement. 

The office's basic program objectives are to: 

• Define short- and long-term goals for the noise program, 

• Define specific problems, find solutions and implement them, and 

• Distribute enforcement authority along with the proper tools to the 
department most familiar with the source of the problem. 

A typical example is how the office handled barking dog complaints. A 
large number of people are disturbed by barking dogs, as evidenced by the 
surveys. After the ordinance was passed, barking dogs came under the new 
noise ordinance (since the Police Department had neither the ability nor the 
budget to continue handling barking dog complaints satisfactorily.) The office 
developed a procedure to handle complaints along with followup procedures once 
the complaint was made. The enforcement procedure, based on compliance rather 
than on punishment, has worked so well that the office now proposes that bark¬ 
ing dog problems can be handled cost effectively by the Animal Regulatory 

Agency. The proposal also includes a dog food tax based on the concept of 

37 

benefits and costs. 

In addition to the research and development concept, compliance is also a 
major component of the program. The Administrator seeks to have violations of 


18 






the noise control ordinance resolved through compliance rather than punitive 
judgments. Coordination and cooperation among the other city agencies is a 
component of paramount importance to the administration of the ordinance. 

Another application of the office's research and development concept is 
in the Aquatics Division of the San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation, 
which has used the office's coordination and cooperation framework to alleviate 
the problem of noisy motor boats in the harbors. An existing State law, the 
Harbours and Navigations Code of California, prohibits the use of motor boats 
that exceed stated noise levels. The office performed sound level measure¬ 
ments and developed procedures for the Aquatics Division to test boats for 
acceptable sound levels. The office was instrumental in developing the 
Aquatics Division's noise control program through providing demonstrations of 
equipment and measurement techniques, assisting in the ordering of appropriate 
equipment, providing assistance with the implementation of the program, and 
providing recommendations on a continuing basis. A recommendation currently 
under consideration by the office is to have the Aquatics Division perform 
safety and noise tests simultaneously for boat owners seeking operating 
permits. This idea of administering and coordinating the noise control pro¬ 
gram through all the appropriate city agencies is one key element of many 
successes of the city's noise control program. Involving other appropriate 
city agencies in the noise control program gives the program additional 
exposure and clout through program administration and enforcement. 

The administration of the program allows for feedback from all levels, 
whether formal or informal. Feedback is another important element of the 
program. For instance, feedback received from the police on what hinders or 
aids their enforcement of the noise ordinance is useful in evaluating and 
formulating amendments to the noise control ordinance or noise control program. 
In addition, the Administrator goes to the Noise Abatement and Control Board 
whenever a problem area is encountered related to the ordinance, or to make 
recommendations for amendments. Based on this interaction, the Board appoints 
a committee to investigate and analyze the problem area or recommendations in 
order to formulate ordinance amendments, if so required. In turn, the proposed 
amendments are presented to the Administrator and then to the Mayor and Council 
via the Manager's office for approval. 

In conclusion, successful administration of the City of San Diego Noise 
Abatement and Control Program is being obtained through the research and 
development philosophy, with an emphasis on development, and through efforts 
to achieve compliance by violators of the ordinance. However, stringent 
punitive enforcement is used as a last resort when all else fails. All 
violators, if prosecuted, are penalized under the criminal statutes. The 
office views itself as a place of knowledge for noise control. Rather than 


19 


Structure and Legal 
Position of the 
Office of Noise 
Abatement and Control 


Public Education 


/ 


taking a punitive attitude toward a violator, the office assumes the problem 
itself. After assuming the problem, it works with the violator to achieve an 
acceptable and viable solution for all parties concerned. A similar philosophy 
is expressed in supporting other city agencies. The office's position is not 
to take over a given city agency's jurisdiction, but rather to coordinate with 
and assist that agency in resolving the problem. This type of coordinating 
and supportive noise control program administration has worked well in the 
city of San Diego. 

The Noise Office is part of the Building Inspection Department, and the 
Administrator reports to the director of that department. The Noise Office 
currently consists of four persons: the administrator, one investigator, a 
stenographer, and a clerk typist. 

Since most of the city departments were involved in the writing of the 

38 

code, other departments are aware of the function and the work of the affice. 

The Administrator deals with other departments through the hierarchy, 

i.e., through the department heads. However, there is also a great deal of 

informal communication. The development of new standards is also approved by 

the Mayor and the Council via the hierarchial route: the Administrator, the 

39 

head of the department, the city manager, and the Council. 

A hearing set by the Administrator constitutes one of the three steps of 
the compliance procedure before a noise violation goes to court. (Usually, 
however, violators comply before a case goes that far. For example, in 1976, 
in an estimated 4,800 noise complaints, only five were tried in criminal 
court and two in civil court,) The Administrator opens a hearing with the 
following words addressed to the violator: "This is a criminal case under 
the Municipal Code .... You have the right to counsel, and any statements 
you make can be held against you." Such an introduction, coupled with a 
professionally conducted hearing, usually produces the desired effect of 

compliance. The code gives the Administrator legal authority to conduct 

, . 40 

hearings. 

When the Office of the Administrator was established, the office genuinely 
wanted to determine what noise problems people have. Although the earlier 
surveys showed that people were concerned about transportation noise, airports, 
and other noises, the question still was, "What are the specific noise sources 
that people would like to do away with?" 

The office then started an advertisement campaign and a registration 
program. Its purpose was to draw out people and to determine the nature of 
complaints. The program was oriented toward residential areas of the city. 


20 





Not surprisingly, when people began to call (since the previously indicated 
surveys had shown dog barking as a major problem), the volume of complaints 
were registered in the following order: 

• Dog barking 

• Amplified music 

• Swimming pool pumps 

• Air-conditioning units 

41 

• Loud vehicles on the street 

Educating the public about noise, noise abatement, the effects of noise 
on humans, and what could be done about noise (enforcement) was a crucial 
element of the program. As stated earlier, the noise control program operates 
most effectively through noise complaints. In this regard, the public had to 
be effectively notified and educated about noise and where to go for assistance 
and further information. Techniques used to accomplish this task are discussed 
below. 

A2 

Media Coverage Newspaper Articles . The media proved helpful and supportive of the noise con¬ 

trol program. Approximately 30 articles relating to the program have been 
published in the local papers. Such articles are printed from time to time as 
the program continues. Initially, the articles were printed to inform and 
educate the public on noise and noise control. The articles stimulated a 
great deal of public interest and have resulted in large numbers of inquiries 
and complaints. A representative sample of newspaper articles is contained 
in Appendix G. In addition, magazine articles have been printed about the 
program. 

Television Appearances . The Administrator made several appearances on 
television to inform the public about the function of his office. A number of 
these appearances were made during newscasts, (Approximately 20 were related 
to newscast appearances.) In addition, a continuing public education program 
was developed for television and is aired approximately twice a month. The 
format of the program presents the Administrator, Dr. Robert Sandlin of the 
Noise Abatement and Control Board and a narrator in a round table discussion 
about noise control. The program is centered around a discussion among three 
participants and addresses how noise affects people, what kind of problems 
are associated with noise, how the noise control program works, and where to 
go for assistance. 

Radio. Coverage of the program and information about noise control have 
been presented on radio shows. The format on the radio shows was similar to 
that of the public education television program. However, the radio program 
allowed listeners to call in and ask the participants questions, which were 


21 






answered on the air. The broadcasts generated a great deal of interest and 

enthusiasm about the program and the entire area of noise control. 

Noise Ordinance 
Distribution 

Free copies of the Noise Abatement and Control Ordinance were made available 

to the general public. The ordinance distribution campaign enabled the public 

to see what the ordinance contained and what the ordinance was able to do. 

The public was encouraged to obtain copies of the ordinance, especially if 

there was any question about a possible violation. A copy of the latest 

ordinance dated March 22, 1977, is contained in Appendix H. 

Monthly Newsletters 

The Administrator developed an informative newsletter for distribution to the 

public for information purposes. The newsletter presents current developments 

concerning the administration and enforcement of the noise control program. 

It alerts the public to revisions of the ordinance that may in turn affect 

compliance to newly established standards. The newsletter also contains 

information on results of research performed by the office. In general, the 

newsletter serves as a medium for the exchange of ideas in noise control. 

Other noise offices in and out of the country receive the newsletter through 

subscriptions. A sample copy of a newsletter is given in Appendix I. 

Water Utility Bill 
Inserts 

Through a campaign program to reiterate the importance of noise control, a 

pamphlet describing the effects of noise and the noise control program was 

developed. This pamphlet was inserted in water bills mailed to residents of 

San Diego. Approximately 220,000 pamphlet inserts have been distributed. A 

sample copy of this pamphlet is shown in Exhibit 5. 

Door Hangers 

Door hangers have been effectively used to obtain information on noise control 

Whenever a complaint is followed up by a field investigation, the investigator 

polls the surrounding neighbors within a 200-300 foot radius. This is accom¬ 
plished either by knocking on doors or by placing door hangers on knobs. A 
sample door hanger is shown in Exhibit 6, This technique has proved useful in 
obtaining public opinion on noise complaints. The technique aids the investi¬ 
gator in establishing some insight into justification of complaints, and it 
serves to advertise the program. Frequently, more noise complaints are 
generated by this public awareness idea. A secondary use of the door hanger 
is to alert residents about temporarily permitted noise sources to be expected 
in the area soon (variance), as shown in Exhibit 7. During the past 3 years, 

approximately 30,000 complaints were generated from the use of door hangers 

/ 

and a total of 90,000 households were alerted to noise issues. 


22 


Exhibit 5 

Water Utility Bill Insert 



z 

5 

5 

Q 

O 

LU 


Z 

< 

<s> 

LU 

I 

H 

u. 

O 

«/* 

LU 

- 

U 

H 

c* 

< 



O 

z 

o 

z 

> 

o 

z 

z 

< 

z 

< 

I 

I- 

5 

«J 

< 

LU 

s 

o 

£ 

o 

X 


J o 

V c ° 

2 C « 

° e -5 
= _2 

Jj c. * 


v2 E 


- S3 


*J 1> c 

•a a | 
g -o S 


i r 
* § 
o ^ 


“C .a • 

_ O 0O 

a. z 00 
* 2 ^ 


j: o 
12 


5 5 ^ 
o « n 
T3 c w 5 
•- o _ 

§ 


x >- C 

f 13 


c 

O ^ 

'5 2 
Ls 

° o 

£.? 
O Q 


-2 <3 c 

| § 3 


E 

c 5. 2 
o * 

•: 3 j 

5 o < 

•2 ^ a ^ 
o 

s o Z 


CO 


<3 8. s £ « — f 1 1 


.5 E-S 
li 3 


’ .a 

U. 


.9 o u 

% & c 
w TJ g 

a c w 

** i 

c c * 

w V w 

•S H .s 

j3 w jj 

o. S Si 
E J E 
o < o 
0 « w 
ns .a « 

v o —c 
~ 2 2 
ri § 

o “ P 
u -o a. 
1 c 3 
“ 5 i 


_E 

0 “J! s 

* o .3 C S 

iji? 


o 3 
z S. 
« 2 
•5 Q. 


c O 

8.-5 
t § 

•H j 

Z * 
& c ~ 

A V 

-a 

. ■= It 

^ v *t a 


.a 

o 




i i 


-3 3 

I a* 
<= .* 


- g- y 


° -g 

E I 
00 

.5 *o 

5 | 

.2 E 
£° 
1 5 


* " oo 
W S .5 


2 _ « 

• C U 

^ 2 O 

5 

5 | s 

J !-* 

o £ » 

z S j 


= .£ a 


E " J= 
O o *-*- 

'p - o 

X ao 2 
8 •§ o 

L| § 

‘11 ! 


DO h- 

G ^3 


> "O 

o £ 


2 .a 

.b c 


6 - 
u» •-» 

a c 

G v 

a *r> 

3 ^ 

1 * 
O. >* 


3 e 
a S 


►. * 
■S i 


^-3 


d. X 


2 5 c 

» J "3 

u -£ v 

.5 c 3 
■a a c 

^ O f% 

P u .5 


I s Hi 


— O _C 
-T) W> t- 

2 ^ 


-V V 
T3 >5 
o 

4i5 

£ 

J= M 

■rf". — 


c 5 s O 

q g 1 g 

Si] « 
o 2-"S O 

u O 

« o. 5 -o 
5 O 5 

T3 O >* 
a m 

— - c c 

O •“ U 

.5 5 * £ 

. _o 72 «# 


J .s 
■ 1 
-p e 

s ° 

O u 


^. 5 

a. t> v 

o 3 J 

bee 


! 

^ J -8 .3 

l!J!z 


o 

u. 


23 



















Exhibit 6 

Sample Door Hanger 


CITY OF SAN DIEGO 

NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL ADMINISTRATION 
BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT 



SORRY WE MISSED 

YOU 

An inspection was made in your neighborhood today 
concerning the following noise complaint. 

□ 

Barking dog 


□ 

Loud Music 


□ 

Trash pick-up before 7:00 a.m. 


□ 

Construction work before 7:00 a.m. 


□ 

Other 



Please call 236-6088 as soon as possible, and let us 
know if you do or do not support the complaint. 


IN-2004 (1-77) 








Exhibit 7 

Door Hanger for Variances 


CITY OF SAN DIEGO 
dOilding inspection depahtment 

NOiSfe ABATEMENT AND CONTROL ADMINISTRATION 


122 2 first avcnuc 

SAN OlKCO, CALIFORNIA 91:101 



SORRY WE MISSED YOU 

PUBLIC SERVICE 
NOTICE 


Dear Citizen: 

A permit/variance has been granted by the Noise 
Abatement and Control Office to: 


for the temporary operation of: 


Should you have any questions or comments 
concerning this activity, please direct your com¬ 
ments to the Noise Abatement and Control Office 
236-5735 




Public Notices 


Homeowner Information 


Qualified Acousticians 


Research and 
Development Results 


Public notices have a threefold purpose in the noise control program. Notices 
are issued to advise potentially noisy equipment installers of the noise abate¬ 
ment regulations, and, by means of a public notice, the public is notified and 
invited to attend noise regulation variance hearings and the Administrator's 
findings and disposition concerning variance applications are made public in 
this fashion. Exhibit 8 shows a typical public notice. 

Aircraft noise is a major problem in San Diego. The city is making progress 
toward alleviating this problem, but the solution is long term in nature. 
Measures being developed to protect the residents include rezoning or restruc¬ 
turing land uses near major aircraft sites and strict enforcement qf building 
codes. A short-range solution or service provided by the office has been to 
provide new homeowners with information on attitudes toward existing aircraft 
noise from residents living within 2,000 feet of the site in question. A 
sample letter used to obtain this information is presented in Exhibit 9. 

In enforcing the noise control ordinance, the Administrator requires certain 
violators or potential violators to provide acoustical analysis of certain 
projects the office reviews. To provide assistance to persons required to 
have this task completed, the office has developed a list of qualified acousti¬ 
cal consultants. The office reviewed qualifications and backgrounds of pro¬ 
spective acoustical firms and individuals to produce the list. The list is 
readily available to anyone, free of charge. 

To assist persons in obtaining compliance with the ordinance, the Noise Office 
conducts research and development projects. Initially, when the program was 
getting underway, a large portion of complaints received were related to bark¬ 
ing dogs (60 to 80 percent). The office began researching the problem and 
developed some ideas for resolving the barking dog problem. Exhibit 10 is a 
letter describing one such idea. This type of research and development is 
carried out in other phases of the noise control program and is made available 
for public use. 


26 


Exhibit 8 

Notice of Public Hearing 


NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 

THIS HEARING WILL BE HELD AT 

SANTA CLARA RECREATION CENTER 

1008 SANTA CLARA PLACE 
SAN DIEGO, CA. 92109 

DATE: March 19, 1977 TIME: 8 p.m. 

TO CONSIDER THE MATTER OF: 

A permit for sewer pipe replacement and excavation along Bayside Walk Alley during 
the hours of 7 p. m. to 7 a. m. every day. 

Construction noise is prohibited in residential areas during the times proposed without 
a permit pursuant to the San Diego Noise Abatement and Control Ordinance (M. C. 
Section 59. 5. 0404). 

The applicant is: 

Metro Young Construction Co. (subcontractor for the City of San Diego) 

2141 Main Street 
San Diego, CA. 92113 

All members of the public are invited to attend. If you would like to comment, but 
will not be able to attend, please mail written comments to: 

Noise Abatement and Control 
1222 First Avenue 
San Diego, CA. 92101 

postmarked no later than 12 midnight, March 17, 1977. 

For further information, call 236-6088. 


27 



Exhibit 9 

Request for Homeowners Information 



NOISE ABATEMENT 
AND CONTROL 
ADMINISTRATION 
Environmental 
Quality Dcpai tment 
23GGC83 


Dear Citizen: 

A prospective home buyer has requested information concerning the 
level of aircraft noise to be expected in your neighborhood. It 
is sometimes difficult to translate acoustical terminology into 
meaningful practical experience. 

You are invited, therefore, to express your feelings, pro or con, 
to this office by writing or calling before 

The information collected will not only be forwarded to the San 
Diegan inquiring, but will be kept on file here to assist us if. 
evaluating the adequacy of current noise impact studies. 


Sincerely, 



JED/bm 


28 







Exhibit 10 


Example of 
Results 


Research and Development 
on Barking Dog Problem 



29 





Municipal Noise 

Ordinance^ 


San Diego Noise Abatement 
and Control Ordinance 


The San Diego Office of Noise Abatement and Control is involved in areas of 
noise control that were not envisioned during the development of the initial 
code. As the Office of Noise Abatement and Control gained momentum, it 
noticed that certain areas in the code required more clarity and more active 
involvement by the office. As a result, the office began enforcing State 
noise control laws and initiated procedures for revising its ordinance in 
November 1976. Revising the noise control ordinance and initiating the 
enforcement of State noise control laws were the result of increasing com¬ 
petence in the area of noise control and abatement through daily work 
experiences. 

Revisions to the ordinance were aimed at controlling ambient noise at its 
present level and possibly decreasing this ambient level. The new ordinance 
created and established a more effective tool in noise level measurements and 
noise control. In the area of public nuisance noise, prima facie sections 
were added to permit enforceability of nuisance laws. 

As was previously discussed, the city of San Diego did not originally 
produce a stringent, quantitative, punitive ordinance. Rather, the city 
initiated a semiquantitative, compliance-oriented program that permitted 
establishment of competence and accountability in the area of noise control. 

As the city's Office of Noise Abatement and Control acquired and established 
more competence, knowledge, and accountability in the area of noise control, 
it was able to successfully institute additional refined quantitative and more 
punitive standards to the ordinance. The enforceability of the code is 
enhanced by its quantitative standards. 

The code is actually a community noise equivalent level measurement in disguise. 
Nighttime limits are 10 decibels lower than daytime measurements; evening limits 
are 5 decibels lower than daytime limits. Property line measurements were 
originally developed according to California League of Cities standards. The 
March 1977 code revision reflects San Diego's experiences over a 2 1/2-year 
period. 


30 


The Noise Abatement and Control Ordinance is contained in Article 9.5 of 


the San Diego Municipal Code. An explanation of this code section is presented 
below. 

Division 1. General Section 59.5.0101 establishes the intent and purpose of the noise control 

ordinance. The making and creating of inadequately controlled noise present a 
hazard to the health and welfare of the residents of San Diego. The ordinance 
was enacted to secure and promote public health, comfort, convenience, safety, 
welfare, prosperity, peace, and quiet for the city and its residents. 

Section 59.5.0102 presents the definitions of words and phrases used 
throughout the ordinance. The meanings of the words and phrases presented in 
the ordinance are as follows: 

• Average Sound Level - a sound level typical of the sound levels at a 
certain place during a given period of time, averaged by the general 
rule of combination for sound levels. Average sound level is also 
called equivalent continuous sound level. 

• Community Noise Equivalent Level - an average sound level during a 
24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels to sound levels in 
the evening from 7 to 10 p.m., and after addition of 10 decibels to 
sound levels in the evening from 7 to 10 p.m., and after addition of 

10 decibels to sound levels in the night after 10 p.m. and before 7 a.m. 

• Construction Equipment - any tools, machinery, or equipment used in 
connection with construction operations, including all types of special 
construction equipment as defined in the pertinent sections of the 
California Vehicle Code, when used in the construction process on any 
construction site, regardless of whether such construction site is 
located on or off the highways. 

• Decibel (dB) - a unit measure of sound (noise) level. 

• Emergency Work - work made necessary to restore property to a safe 
condition after a public calamity, or work required to protect persons 
or property from imminent exposure to danger of damage, or work by 
public or private utilities to restore utility service. 

• Motor Vehicles - any and all self-propelled vehicles as defined in the 
California Vehicle Code, specifically including but not limited to 
minibikes and go-carts, 

• Noise Level - the same as sound level. The terms may be used inter¬ 
changeably. 

• Person - a person, firm, association, copartnership, joint venture, 
corporation, or any entity, public or private. 


31 




• Sound Level - in decibels, that quantity measured with a sound level 
meter as defined herein, by use of A-frequency weighting and fast time 
averaging, unless some other time averaging is specified. 

• Sound Level Meter - an instrument for measuring sound, including a 
microphone, an amplifier, an attenuator, networks at least for the 
standardized frequency weighting A, and an indicating instrument having 
at least the standardized dynamic characteristic "fast,"'as specified 
in American National Standard specifications for sound level meters 

SI.4-1971 or its successor. 

• Sound Amplifying Equipment - equipment as specified in Section 33.0003b 
of the San Diego Municipal Code. 

• Disturbing, Excessive, or Offensive Noise - any sound or noise conflict¬ 
ing with the criteria or levels set forth in this article. 

• Supplementary Definitions of Technical Terms - definitions of technical 
terms not defined herein shall be obtained from American National 
Standard acoustical terminology, SI.1-1960 (R-1976). 

Section 59,5.0201 establishes the function of Noise Abatement and Control 
Administration within the Building Inspection Department of the city. This 
function is to be administered by the noise abatement officer (Administrator). 

Section 59.5,0202 creates the duties and responsibilities of the Adminis¬ 
trator. The Administrator is responsible for regulating and controlling the 
emission of excessive and offensive noise within the city. The Administrator 
has the authority to coordinate the activities of all city departments involved 
in activities that may relate to the control and abatement of noise. However, 
the Administrator's primary responsibilities are: 

• To perform investigations, inspections, and studies that are necessary 
for the purpose of enforcing the noise control ordinance, 

• To institute necessary proceedings to prosecute violations of the 
noise control ordinance in order to abate and control noise, 

• The grant variances as provided in the noise control ordinance and to 
hold hearing concerning the issuance of a variance and to impose con¬ 
ditions he feels are necessary to ensure the public health and welfare 
as provided by the ordinance, and 

• To execute other necessary actions for the successful administration 
of the purpose and intent of the noise control ordinance. 

The Administrator may delegate any of the duties vested in the adminis¬ 
tration of his office. Specific recommendations for changes to existing legis¬ 
lation or for new legislation may be presented to the Board for Abatement and 
Control of Noise for review and comment by the Administrator. 




Section 59.5.0203 describes the requirements and conditions for evaluating 
variance applications. A fee is charged to each applicant for processing 
variances, and a report of variances is prepared monthly and is available to 
the public. 

Each variance presents in detail the methodology to be used for achieving 
compliance, accompanied with a schedule. A variance, in other words, is a 
permit for violators of the code to continue their normal operations while 
taking the necessary steps to achieve compliance within a prescribed time 
frame and through methods approved by the Administrator. However, if the 
Administrator feels that a reasonable time for compliance cannot be determined, 
a permit may be issued for a period not to exceed 3 years. In determining the 
terms and conditions of a permit, the Administrator considers the following 
factors: 

• Magnitude of noise emitted 

• Land use or property uses of the impacted area 

• Operations carried on under existing nonconforming rights or conditional- 
use permit or zone variances 

• Time factors related to study, design, financing, and achievement of the 
compliance 

• Economic factors related to age and useful life of equipment 

• General public interest and welfare 

Section 59,5.0204 discusses the appeal process. Anyone directly affected 
by a noise and who is dissatisfied by an approval or disapproval of a variance 
may appeal the Administrator's decision in writing to the Board for Abatement 
and Control of Noise. The board meets as soon as possible to consider appeals 
of denial. All other appeals are scheduled for the board's regular course of 
business. 

Section 59.50205 explains the inspection rights of the Administrator. The 
Administrator is empowered to inspect at a reasonable time and in a reasonable 
manner any device that is intended to or that produces sound and that creates 
or may create noise, including the premises where the device is in operation. 

If for any reason the Administrator is denied entry, he may obtain an inspection 
warrant from an appropriate court. 

Section 59.5.0206 establishes the San Diego City Noise Map as the official 
record of noise levels, and establishes the Administrator's responsibility for 
maintaining this record. The map is used in determining the community noise 
equivalent levels (CNEL). The noise map is revised and updated annually. 

Requests may be made to the Administrator, by any person, to accept, for a loca¬ 
tion within the city, a CNEL where none is shown at the specific location on the 
official noise map or where there is a conflict, provided that: 


33 






Division 3. Noise 
Abatement and 
Control Compliance 


Division 4. Limits 


• A continuous measurement of noise is made at the location for at least 
2 weeks 

• Appropriate information is obtained concerning the noise-making activity 
in the area during the test period and during the previous year 

• The survey and estimate of CNEL are made by a qualified acoustical 
engineer at the expense of the applicant. 

Section 59.5.0207 creates and establishes the Board for Abatement and 
Control of Noise. The members of the board are appointed by the Mayor with 
Council confirmation for a 2-year term and serve without compensation. The 
Mayor is empowered to designate a chairman; however, in the absence of such 
designation, the board may select its chairman. The board consists of a chair¬ 
man plus 10 additional members with the following qualifications: 

• One member qualified by training and experience in the field of 
acoustics, 

• One member qualified by training, experience, and registration in the 
field of mechanical engineering, 

• One member qualified by training, experience, and licensing in the 
field of architecture, 

• One qualified physician by training, experience, and licensing in the 
field of physiological effects of noise, 

• One qualified audiologist by training, experience, and licensing, 

• One electronics engineer, 

• One economist, and 

• Three general members of the public. 

The board is empowered to establish its own rules and procedures for con¬ 
ducting business and meets once a month or as needed to transact its business. 
Six members are needed to have a quorum, and five affirmative votes are neces¬ 
sary for board actions. The board is primarily charged with the responsibility 
of hearing appeals from rulings of the Noise Abatement and Control Administrator 
However, the decision of the Administrator to refer a case to the city attorney 
for a criminal action is not appealable. 

Section 59,5.0301 states that the city will not award or enter into a contract 
involving equipment, services, labor, or any combination that cause a violation 
of the code. The Administrator is responsible for recommending or advising the 
appropriate city departments of specifications for the operation or construction 
of devices and activities as related to city contracts. 

Section 59.5.0401 presents the allowable noise limits for locations within the 
city or beyond boundaries of property lines on which the noise is produced. 

Those limits are given in Exhibit 11. 


34 





Exhibit 11 
Applicable Limits 


• 


One-Hour Average 

Land Use Z one 

Time of Day 

Sound Level (dB) 

Residential, all R-l 

7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 

50 


7 p.m. to 10 p.m. 

45 


10 p.m. to 5 a.m. 

40 

All R-2 

7 a. m. to 7 p. m. 

55 


7 p.m. to 10 p.m. 

50 


10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 

45 

R-3, R-4, and all 

7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 

60 

other residential 

7 p.m. to 10 p.m. 

55 


10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 

50 

All commercial 

7 a. m. to 7 p. m. 

65 


7 p.m. to 10 p.m. 

60 


10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 

60 

Manufacturing, all other 

any time 

75 

industrial, including 



agricultural and extractive 



industry. 




The sound level limit on a boundary between two zoning districts is deter¬ 
mined by using the arithmetic mean of the limits for the respective districts. 

A public utility transmission facility located on or adjacent to a property 
line is subject to the above limits measured at or beyond 6 feet from the 
boundary of the easement. 

Section 59.5.0402 addresses limits placed on off-highway motor vehicles. 

It is illegal to operate any motor vehicle of any type on any site other than 
a public street or highway as defined in the California Vehicle Code. In 
addition, it is unlawful to exceed the noise limits permitted for on-highway 
motor vehicles as specified in the table for speed limits of 45 mph or less 
contained in Section 23130 of the California Vehicle Code and as corrected 
for prescribed distances given in Exhibit 12. 

The use of authorized emergency vehicles in emergency situations is 
excluded from this section. 

Section 59,5.0403 concerns the operation of watercraft in waters under 
the jurisdiction of the city. Watercraft operating within the city’s juris¬ 
diction are limited to the provisions of the California Harbors and Navigation 
Code. Vessels are limited to a noise level of 84 decibels at a distance of 
50 feet. Permits issued by the city to watercraft that are not in compliance 
with the code are subject to review and approval by the Administrator. 

Section 59.5.0404 establishes the code's provisions concerning construc¬ 
tion noise. Construction noise is prohibited between the hours of 7 p.m. to 
7 a.m. or on legal holidays (with the exception of Columbus Day and George 


35 









Exhibit 12 

Decibel Correction Figures 


Distances (feet) 

Correction (dB) 

25 

-6 

28 

-5 

32 

-4 

35 

-3 

40 

-2 

45 

-1 

50 (preferred distance) 

0 

56 

+1 

63 

+2 

70 

+3 

80 

44 

90 

4-5 

100 

+6 


Washington's Birthday), and on Sundays. The provisions of this section exempt 
emergency work, provided the Administrator is notified. In granting a permit 
or variance related to this section, the Administrator is required to consider 
whether the construction noise in the vicinity of the proposed worksite would 
be less objectionable at night than during the daytime because of population 
densities or neighboring activities; whether obstruction and interference with 
traffic, particularly on streets of major importance would be less objection¬ 
able at night than during the daytime; whether the type of work to be performed 
emits noises at such a low level as not to cause significant disturbances in 
the vicinity of the worksite; the character and nature of the neighborhood of 
the proposed worksite; whether great economic hardship would occur if the work 
were spread over a longer time; and whether proposed night work is in the 
general public interest. He prescribes such conditions, working times, types 
of construction equipment to be used, and permissible noise levels as he deems 
necessary in the public interest. 

Section 59.5.0405 prohibits any construction activity causing an average 
sound level greater than 75 decibels during the 12-hour period (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) 
at or within property lines of areas zoned residential. The only exception to 
the prohibition is for emergency work, provided the Administrator is notified 
48 hours after the initiation of such work. 

Section 59.5.0406 prohibits the operation of a refuse compacting, process¬ 
ing, or collection vehicle or parking lot sweeper between the hours of 7 p.m. 
to 7 a.m. in any residential area unless a permit has been applied for and 
granted by the Administrator, 


36 







Division 5. Public Section 59.5.0501 presents the general prohibitions of public nuisance noise. 

Nuisance Noise 

This section prohibits anyone from making noise that causes discomfort or 
annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivity. The following 
criteria are considered in determining violations of this section: 

• The level of the noise, 

• Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual, 

• Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural, 

• The level of the background noise, 

• The proximity of the noise to sleeping facilities, 

• The nature of zoning of the area from which the noise emanates, 

• The time of day or night the noise occurs, 

• The duration of the noise, and 

• Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent, or constant. 

Although the language and acts prohibited within Division 5 are subjective 
a prima facie section was added to place more enforceability in the code. 

Section 59.5.0502 describes the prohibited acts contained in Division 5 
of the ordinance. The unnecessary use of horns or signaling devices on 
vehicles is prohibited. The use of sound production or reproduction devices 
(e.g., musical instruments, televisions, phonographs, and sound amplifiers) 
that disturb any reasonable person of normal sensitivity is unlawful. However, 
participants of an authorized licensed parade or any person who is authorized 
by the city to engage in such conduct is exempt. The operation of any such 
sound producing or reproducing equipment between the hours of 10 p.m. and 
8 a.m. that is plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet from its location is 
prima facie evidence for a violation of this section. Loud yelling, shouting, 
and the like on public streets between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. or at any time or 
place are prohibited. 

The frequent or long-continued noise caused by an animal maintained by any 
person, which disturbs a reasonable person of normal sensitivity, is prohibited 
The noise of any such animal that disturbs two or more residents who reside in 
separate residences and who agree to times and duration of the noise is prima 
facie evidence for a violation. 

The creation of any noise in or adjacent to any school, institution of 
learning, church, court, library, rest home, or long-term medical or mental 
care facility is prohibited, provided signs are displayed to denote these areas 

The creation of noise by screeching tires, racing or accelerating the 
engine of any motor vehicle, or deliberate backfiring of an engine is unlawful. 
In addition, the operation of radios, phonographs, or tape players on urban 
transit buses that is audible to anyone in the bus is prohibited. 


37 





Section 59.5.0503 addresses the issue of noise produced by burglar alarms. 

No burglar alarm may be used that is not capable of terminating within 20 

minutes after being activated. The Police Department is empowered to take the 

necessary steps to disconnect burglar alarms after activation. Any place 

where an alarm has been installed must display the telephone number where the 

owner may be contacted. 

Division 6. Viola¬ 
tions and Enforce¬ 
ment 

Section 59.5.0601 states that any violation of the ordinance is deemed a misde- 

meanor, and, if an offender is found guilty, a fine in an amount not to exceed 

$500 may be assessed or a term of imprisonment not to exceed 6 months may be 

imposed, or both. Each day a violation is permitted to continue constitutes a 

separate offense and is punishable as such. 

Section 59,5.0602 allows for additional punitive measures to be taken 

against violators. Any operation of an activity or device that causes discom¬ 
fort to reasonable persons of normal sensitivity may be subject to abatement 

by a restraining order or an injunction. 

Section 59.5.0604 provides for the prosecution of violations under the 

code in the same manner as other misdemeanor violations are enforced. However, 

the Administrator is empowered to obtain voluntary compliance by means of 

warnings, notices, and education. 

Section 59.5.0605 states that permits or other notices required by the 

code must be displayed or maintained on the premises designated. 

Section 59.5.0606 prohibits knowingly making false and misleading state- 

ments or unlawful reproduction or alteration of documents issued by the 

Administrator or required by the code. 

Section 59.5.0607 concludes the ordinance by stating that, if any portions 

of the code are held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other portions of 

the code that can be effected without the invalid portions. 

Future Plans and 
Improvements 

The San Diego Noise Abatement and Control Ordinance has undergone one revision 

since its enactment and will undergo another amendment in the early part of 

1978. These revisions or refinements of the ordinance are a result of inade¬ 
quate provisions of the code, that were recognized through daily practical 

application and as a result of changes required to accommodate a complex and 

ever-changing environment. The currently anticipated amendments or changes to 

the code are discussed on the following page. 

All subjective clauses, phrases, sentences, and references in the code 

will be removed. There is a greater need to increase the dependence on 

quantitative standards and evidence that can be used in court. 

It is proposed that all noise equipment be time-integrating equipment 

or possess the capability. 


38 









It has also been recommended that existing construction equipment noise 
emission standards be replaced by a regulation that regards general construc¬ 
tion activity as a distinct land use. The amendment sets noise limits for 
construction comparable to the limits for extractive and Industrial land use. 
This amendment would change the city's position from one of limiting the local 
use of certain types of construction equipment to that of regulating the 
average noise levels to which the public is exposed, irrespective of the 
number or types of sources. The idea behind this proposal is for the Noise 
Office to refrain from administering source regulations. This proposed 
amendment would offer greater freedom to the construction operator to use 
in-stock, competitively priced equipment, provided that the 1-hour average 
sound level between the hours of 7 a.m. - 7 p.ra. on residential property is 
not exceeded during any workday. This limit would apply only to residential 
areas instead of to all land-use zones. 


39 


Enforcement 


Enforcement Guide¬ 
lines/Philosophy 


The San Diego Noise Abatement and Control Ordinance was developed to give 
citizens a central place to complain about noise. Prior to the ordinance, no 
central place existed for citizens in the need of help. The Police Department, 
councilmen, and other city agencies received sporadic complaints, but were 
unequipped to handle the situation, Therefore, the San Diego Office of Noise 
Abatement and Control was established to centralize citizen complaints, educate 
the general public, and, most important of all, enforce the noise control 
ordinance. 

The noise ordinance is primarily structured to operate through complaints 
rather than through monitoring. However, monitoring becomes a part of the 
enforcement procedures after a violation is identified through the complaint 
procedure. Most people perceive noise as a pollutant that they must endure 
because of progress. For the most part, people do not know what to do about 
an annoying noise. This situation existed in San Diego, and citizens had to 
be educated concerning noise and noise control before enforcement of the 
ordinance could be accomplished. 

Complaints are not the only basis for enforcement of the noise control 
ordinance. Through coordination and cooperation with other city agencies 
(e.g.. Zoning Administration, Environmental and Planning Department, and Build¬ 
ing Inspections Department) involved in activities that relate to noise abate¬ 
ment and control, the Noise Office is able to enforce the ordinance. 

The enforcement of San Diego's Noise Control Ordinance is structured around 
voluntary compliance and public awareness. Enforcement through punishment or 
suppression is viewed as a short-range solution to problems. Stimulating 
public awareness is a process utilized to obtain feedback and to institute 
changes in the public attitude toward noise. The establishment of voluntary 
compliance through public awareness is considered a key element in obtaining 
noise abatement and control as a long-range goal. 

Enforcement of the noise control program is administered through a 
philosophy of researching identified problems and developing appropriate 


40 


Enforcement Procedure 


Complaint Procedure 


solutions. The major theme of the program is compliance. The Administrator 
believes that punitive enforcement is not the key to controlling or alleviating 
noise problems, and punitive enforcement and court cases are expensive. The 
achievement of compliance is considered a less expensive method of controlling 

noise, and the compliance rationale is usually accepted by violators. The 

\ 

Administrator rarely goes to court to prosecute violators, because compliance 
is usually accomplished. Therefore, the success of the program is measured by 
compliance or, in other words, by the number of cases that do not go to court. 

To obtain compliance, the Administrator assumes the problem and works 
with the offender to develop a viable solution rather than initially imposing 
a penalty. If the offender continues to violate the ordinance or disregard 
the compliance proceedings, then more punitive action is taken under the 
criminal statutes. The office has a rather impressive record in court relating 
to convictions and has established credibility in the court system. With this 
in mind, most offenders usually adhere to the compliance procedures. 

The office is active with other city agencies involved in noise control 
activities. The Administrator aids and supports other city agencies in this 
area. The philosophy exhibited in this area of enforcement is not to assume 
an agency's jurisdiction. The office's position is to provide technical 
assistance and support when it is required, as explained earlier in Chapter 4. 

Enforcement of the noise abatement program is instituted through two means: 
the receipt of complaints from residents and through the coordination and 
review of noise related activities of other city departments. 

The steps involved in the complaint procedure developed by the office are out¬ 
lined below. The initial procedures are structured to obtain compliance. 
However, stringent measures are imposed if compliance is not obtained. (See 
flow chart in Exhibit 13a.) 

Complaint Registered , All complaints must be registered with the office. 
Formal complaint registration forms are available from the Noise Control Office. 
A sample copy is contained in Exhibit 13b, 

Offender's Initial Warning . After the complaint has been registered with 
the office, a file is set up. The offender is notified of the complaint and 
instructed to take appropriate corrective action or to call the office for 
assistance. The offender is instructed that further action will be taken if 
the situation is not corrected within a reasonable time period or if another 
complaint is filed. Samples of this type of correspondence are contained in 
Exhibit 14a. The offender is made aware of the acoustical engineering firms 
available if he needs professional assistance. In addition, offenders are 
informed of the availability of noise variance permits for which they may 


41 






Exhibit 13a 

City of San Diego Noise Complaint Procedure Flow Chart 



INITIAL 

RESPONSE 


FOLLOW-UP 













































































Exhibit 13a Ccontinued) 

City of San Diego Noise Complaint Procedure Flow Chart 



43 










































































Exhibit 13b 

Noise Complaint Registration Form 



THE CITY OF 

SAN DIEGO 

BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT 

NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL ADMINISTRATION 

1222 FIRST A VENUE • SAN DIECO, CALIFORNIA 92101 • (714} 2J6-608S 


COMPLAINT REGISTRATION FORM 


FOR FASTER SERVICE PROVIDE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE 


PLEASE, ONLY ONE StCNATUP.E FOR EACH FOAM 
AND ONE FORM FOR EACH COMPLAINTI 


Please check the appropriate boxes: 

( J BARKING PQC Number of dogs_ 


treed: 

Color: 


treed: 

Color: 


treed: 
Color: 


( ) less than 15 lbs. 
( ) IS - 50 lbs. 

( ) over 50 tbs. 


( ) less than 15 
( ) 16 - 50 lbs. 
( ) over 50 lbs. 


( ) MUSIC 


( ) drums 

( ) electric guitar(s) 

( ) piano 
( ) radio 

( ) record player/tape recorder 

( ) other _ 

( ) nurater of people causing the 

noise _ 


( ) TIME OF OCCURRENCE 

{ ) every day 
( ) every other day 
( ) once or twice a week 
( ) on weekends 

( ) LOCATION OF NOISE SOURCE 


( ) less than 15 lbs. 

( ) 16-50 lbs. 

( ) over 50 lbs. 

( ) OTHER 

( ) TRASH PICK-UP or PARKING LOT SWEEPERS 
near residential area before 7 a.m. or 
after 7 p.m. 

( ) excessively loud trash pick-up truck. 

( ) CONSTRUCTION NOISE before 7 a.m. or 
after 7 p.m. 

( ) OR on Sunday or holidays. 

( ) excessively loud construction noise 
near a residence. 

( ) MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR/NAIMTENANCc noise. 

( ) _ 


( ) at night (between 10 p.m. t 7 a.m.) 
( ) evening (from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) 

( ) daytime (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) 

( ) other hours 


lbs. 


( ) when dogs are left unattended 


Exact address from which the noise originates 

Name of the responsible party: _ 

Noise source(s) are located: 


( ) outside in the front yard ( ) in the house 

( ) outside in the back yard ( ) In the garage 

( ) other __ 


On . J contacted the pe/tson AiApcniiblt rfc-t the diitunbance iniouning them 

o( mg intent to yj.e thnS Comp/jUnt. 


If you have not contacted the party you are accusing please explain your reasons on the back of 
this form. 


print your name . your signature 


your address zip code your telephone number 


44 































Exhibit 14a 

Examples of Offender's Initial Warnings 


THE CITY OF 

SAN DIEGO 

CITY OPERATIONS BUILDING 1222 FIRST AVENUE SAN DIEGO. CALIF- 92101 

NOISE ABATEMENT 
AND CONTROL 
ADMINISTRATION 236-6088 

A complaint has been filed against you which suggests a violation of Sections 59 5 0501 and 
59.5.0502 of the San Diego Noise Abatement and Control Ordinance. This card is simply a 
request for you to take appropriate corrective measures immediately. 

Recommendations and a short descriptor of the complaint have been typed below. Whether 
you follow our solution, or implement your own, be advised that further acton will be taken 
should another complaint be filed with this office. 

CONTACT THIS OFFICE IMMEDIATELY AT 2366068 REGARDING THE MEASURES 
YOU PLAN TO TAKE. 

# 




Exhibit 14a (continued) 

Examples of Offender's Initial Warnings 


£ 

& 

- i 

3 “■ 


1 « 
£ g 

to U 
C 3 

3 P 

3 >■> 
C v— 
ri O 

© 8. 

o to 

© 

§ s 

o c 


I s 
< o 


rf 

JZ 

♦-» 

.2 

rt 

o 

10 

■*-> 

a 

o 

S 

o 

u 

3 

<o 

co 

o 

S 

u 

3 

o 


B 

a . 

§■ 1 
o ^ 


o 

o 

UJ 

5 

sZ 

K 

ICO 


.2 w 


73 «> 


© 

•C 

2 


3 

O 

>» 

9 


o 


5 - c 


SSI 

SSl 

z . 
o < 

GSg 

y uj ^ 

c- 5 H 


p g 5 


■J w r ( 

- o £ 
ej 2 *. 



PS 

§ 

W 

s 

Q 

Z 

O 


M 

P* 

gs 

g§ 

°§ 

o ffl 


gJ8 & 

o H -SS 

33 O 

=3 c S 
§ 3 5 
"*"* © 
5 


• 

c 

J-, fcO 

Z o 

2 S 

1 

^ to 

© 

H O' 

© 

rt 

Sj 

< *C 

“S 

£ 2 

co as 


£5 

§2 

1 

§■? 

12 

CO 

t* 

1 ° 

< 0 

3 

O 

“■ g 

o °* 

H 

<•-» 

o 

© 

to 

2 2 
C H 


•a 


to 

t* 

\ 

04 


Bfifi a a a sea aaa 



co a a. 

t- © 


U CO </j w 

a a ~ g 2 


7J 


73 

3 

a 

© 

2 

"S3 

2 


5 


s -3 

33 
A a 
CC © 
. 2 
co "3 

i © 

os « 


2 


5 

3 


to ° © 


46 


The sound level limit at a location on a boundary between two zoning district^ Is the 
arithmetic mean of the respective limits for the two districts. 













Exhibit 14a (continued) 

Examples of Offender's Initial Warnings 



47 





Exhibit 14a (continued) 

Examples of Offender's Initial Warnings 



48 















apply to allow continuance of operations while steps toward compliance are 
being developed. (See Exhibit 14b.) 

Correspondence With Complainant . The complainant is notified of the 
initial steps taken by the office. He is instructed to notify the noise con¬ 
trol office immediately if the situation continues or reoccurs. This process 
is part of the follow-up procedures and serves to maintain the lines of com¬ 
munication, which are important in the enforcement of the program. Exhibit 
14c shows a sample of this type of correspondence. 

Receipt of Second Complaint . If another complaint is received concerning 
the same offense, a field investigation is conducted in which an investigator 
takes sound level measurements related to the alleged offense, takes photo¬ 
graphs, and polls residents in the immediate vicinity. This is another step 
in the enforcement procedures of obtaining documented evidence for prosecution 
purposes. 

Hearing Correspondence . If the investigator during his inspection is 
unable to lead the accused into a course of remedial action which is mutually 
agreeable with the complaining witnesses, a hearing is scheduled. A certified 
letter is mailed to the accused, explaining the violation of which he is 
accused and the date and place the hearing is scheduled. The certified letter 
not only documents correspondence to the accused, it also serves to clarify in 
some instances the accused's attitude in the matter and intent to act. If the 
accused refuses to sign for the office correspondence or signs for the letter 
but fails to attend, prosecution is normally initiated with dispatch. Exhibit 
15 contains a sample of this letter. The accused is allowed to have counsel 
and witnesses. The accused is also advised of consequences that may arise if 
he is not present at the hearings. 

A similar letter is mailed to the complainant requesting his presence at 
the hearing. Complainants are allowed to have counsel and are encouraged to 
invite witnesses. They are warned about the outcome of the hearing if they 
are not present. Complainants are provided with a chart to record dates and 
durations of the noise disturbances from the time they receive notification 
of the meeting until the actual date of the hearing. This is viewed as further 
documentation and evidence for the complainant's case. Exhibit 16a shows a 
sample of this letter. 

Hearings . Two types of hearings are conducted: pre-prosecution office 
hearings and hearings to consider permits and variances. In the first hearing, 
the defendant is advised of his rights to remain silent, to confer with legal 
counsel prior to responding to any questions and to know if a formal charge 
is filed. Statements made by the accused during the office hearing could be 
used against him or her in a court of law. At the conclusion of the hearing, 
after hearing testimony from both parties and considering the investigator's 


49 






Exhibit 14b 

Application for Variance Permit 



50 














































Exhibit 14c 

Examples of Correspondence with Complainants 


THE CITY OF 


SAN DIEGO 

NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL ADMINISTRATION 

BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT . CITY OPERA TIONS BUILDINC . 1222 FIRST A VENUE 
SAN DIEOO, CALIFORNIA 92101 (714)236 6088 


The party responsible for the noise disturbance in your neighborhood 
advised to take appropriate corrective action. 


has been 


If the noise continues or reoccurs, NOTIFY THIS OFT ICE IMMEDIATELY! 
Follow-up will be conducted upon request. 



IN-2105 (REV. 1-77) 


THE CITY OF 1712 

SAN DIEGO 

NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL ADMINISTRATION 

BllLDINC INSPECTION DEPA R TMENT • CITY OPERA TIONS BUILDINC • 1222 FIRST A VENUE 
SAN DIEOO. CALIFORNIA 92101 (7141 236 6088 



Our recent investigation indicates that the noise violation in your neighborhood 
Is now reduced or abated to levels permissible under the Municipal Code. 

Should a violation reoccur, please contact the investigator below between the 
hours of 8 and 10 a.m.. Monday through Friday, for further assistance. 


IN UN <1—7—T) 


Investigator 





Exhibit 15 

Hearing Correspondence—Defendant 



THE CITY OF 

SAN DIEGO 

BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT 

NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL ADMINISTRATION 

1222 FIRST AVENUE . SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 • (714) 236-6088 


EE: 


A complaint has been filed with this Department suggesting a violation of 
Section 59.5.0502 of the San Diego Noise Abatement and Control Ordinance. 

In response to this complaint, a hearing has been scheduled to discuss the 
matter with you and the complainant to determine whether further action, if 
any, is necessary. This hearing has been scheduled for 

at . Please check in at Counter 5, third floor. 

City Operations Building, 1222 First Avenue. 

Your attendance will be appreciated. If you are unable to be present at 
this hearing, the complainant's version of the facts may be entitled to ; 
greater weight. Please feel free to invite witnesses and/or legal counsel 
who may offer information pertinent to the alleged violation. 


G. W. CURTIS 



ADMINISTRATOR 

bm 


52 






Exhibit 16a 

Hearing Correspondence—Complainant 



THE CITY OP 

SAN DIEGO 

BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT 

NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL ADMINISTRATION 

1222 FIRST AVENUE • SAN D1ECO, CALIFORNIA 92101 • (714) 236-60SS 


RE: 

You have filed a complaint with this Department suggesting a violation of 
Section 59*5«0502 of the San Diego Noise Abatement and Control Ordinance. 

In response to this complaint, a hearing has been scheduled to discuss the 
matter with you and the offender to determine whether further action, if 
any, is necessary. This hearing has been scheduled for 
at . Please check in at Counter 5, third floOr, 

City Operations Building, 1222 First Avenue. 

Your attendance will be appreciated. If you are unable to be present at 
this hearing, the offender’s version of the facts may be entitled to Greater 
weight. Please feel free to invite witnesses and/or legal counsel who may 
offer information pertinent to the alleged violation. 


G. W. CURTIS 



The form below is provided for your convenience to record the dates and 
duration of the noise‘disturbances between now and the date of the hearing. 


ate: 

Date: 

Date: 

Date: 

Date: 

Date: 

Date: 

uration: 
Example: 

7a.m. to 

7:30 a.m. 
Dp.m. to 

11 p.m.) 

Duration: 

Duration: 

Duration: 

Duration: 

Duration: 

Duration: 

ate: 

Date: 

Date: 

Date: 

Date: 

Date: 

Date: 

uration: 

Duration: 

Duration: 

Duration: 

Duration: 

Duration: 

Duration: 


1-2102 (10-76) 


53 



















report and any evidence or written testimony submitted to the Administrator 
during the hearing, a decision is rendered with a recommendation for com¬ 
pliance. The defendant is advised as to what steps to take to specifically 
remedy the problem and the period of time in which to act. Failure to imple¬ 
ment these recommendations is considered willful intent not to comply by the 
defendant. A brief findings and disposition of the recommendations are 
published approximately one week after the hearing. 

If the hearing is convened to consider a variance or appeal request, to 
continue a noise or operation of noisy equipment in violation of the code, the 
focus of the hearing is to consider the adequacy of remedial efforts proposed 
by the applicants in an acoustical analysis report presented previously to the 
office. The applicant is given a few minutes to argue his case before the 
Administrator and any attending residents living in proximity to the site in 
question. In the case of sandblasting or other mobile noise sources, the 
public at large is invited to attend the hearing and is permitted to speak for 
or against the proposal. 

The Administrator has the authority to either deny or approve the permit 
or variance application. Findings and disposition containing a findings of 
fact in the matter and conditions, if any, on the variance including time 
restrictions and whatever operation considerations are germane are always 
published. These decisions are appealable in writing to the Noise Abatement 
and Control Board (Exhibit 16b). The Board has the authority to uphold, over¬ 
turn, or impose new conditions on the Administrator’s decision or the variance 
application. There is no appeal from the Board's decision, except through the 
courts. 

Defendant's Failure to Appear at Hearing . If the accused fails to appear 
at the scheduled hearing, he is mailed a letter similar to the one in Exhibit 
17. The accused is warned or advised that further complaints received concern¬ 
ing a reoccurrence of the noise violation will result in initiation of prosecu¬ 
tion. The accused, at this point, is encouraged to notify the office if he is 
taking corrective measures to alleviate any misunderstandings concerning his 
intent. The complainant is advised to notify the office immediately concern¬ 
ing reoccurrence of the noise violation. 

Prosecution . If complaints continue to be registered with the Noise 
Abatement and Control Office concerning the accused's failure to correct the 
problem, the case is forwarded to the City Attorney's Office. A criminal com¬ 
plaint is issued charging the defendant with commission of a misdemeanor. The 

V ,V 

defendant is informed of this action by letter (Exhibit 18). Exhibit 19 con¬ 
tains the standardized form used to forward and summarize the case for the 
city prosecutor. 


54 





Exhibit 16b 

Application for Appeal 


504*1 BOARD OF appeals application 

NOIK AIATCMINT AND CONTROL IOAKO [—~~ - 

Of PABTMtNT or BUILDING iNSrCCTlON CITY Of SAN DIEGO 

INSTRUCTIONS 

1. The Noise Abatement and Control Board is legally empowered to: affirm, modify, or overrule the Administrator's rulings and deter¬ 
minations pursuant to Municipal Code Section 59.5.0207. 

2. All appeals to the Board must be within the scope of authority described above. Only those items requested in writing in this appeal 
will be considered. Any appeal which has been submitted to the Board for consideration requires action by the Board. Such appeal 
may NOT be withdrawn by the applicant. 

3. Hearings are open for public attendance. You will be notified of the hearing date. 

4. Address all communications to: Noise Abatement and Control Board, Noise Abatement and Control Office. City Operations Building, 
1222 First Avenue, San Diego, California 921C1. THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED BY THE APPELLANT. 

Applicant fill in below this line, this side only — Please print or type. 

INFORMATION 

NAMC: - ADDRCt* _ . ^ 

• 

TELEPHONE - APPROXIMATE DISTANCE Or RESIDENCE FROM NOISE lOUBfl 

CHECK ONE: VARIANCE APPEAL □ PERMIT APPEAlCD 

IS APPEAL lASIO ON QUANTITATIVE DATE? VC9 □ NO O 

• P YES. PLEASE ATTACH ALL PERTINENT DATA. GRAPHS, ETC. 

IF NO. PLEASE EC SURE TO DISCUSS CLEARLY. 

| _REQUEST 

Clearly define all items requested in the appeal. 


1 

< 

o 

£ 

State why it is necesscry or desirable that this request be approved, and what if any arrangement or device is proposed in lieu of the activ¬ 
ity permitted by the Administrator. 


SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT IF COMPANY OFFICER OR ORGANIZATION REPRESENT A ■ 

TIVE (INDICATE NAME * FUNCTION) (PLEASE PRINT) 



in-x ie» (1 -»•) H additional space is required attach saps -s re shut. 


55 


































Exhibit 17 

Example of Correspondence Citing Failure to Appear at Hearing 



THE CITY OF 


PU1LDINC INSPECTION DEPARTMENT 

NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL ADMINISTRATION 

1222 FIRST AVENUE • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 • (714) 236-6088 


SAN DIEGO 


RE: FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED SAN DIEGO CITY OFFICE HEARING 


A hearing was conducted today concerning your alleged violations of 
Sections 59.5.0501 and 55.5.0507, of the San Diego Municipal Code 
Noise Ordinance. This letter is an advisement to you that because 
of your failure to attend this hearing to discuss this matter as 
requested in our lest correspondence, further complaints evidencing 
a reoccurrence of the noise violation v/i 1 1 result in initiation of 
prosecution. 

If you have begun corrective steps, you should notify this office 
immediately to preclude misunderstandings concerning your intent 
to act on the matter. 



G. W. CURTIS 
BUILDING INSPE 


ADMINISTRATOR 


gh 


56 











Exhibit 18 

Prosecution Correspondence—Defendant 



THE CITY OF 

SAN DIEGO 

BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT 

NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL ADMINISTRATION 

1222 FIRST AVENUE • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 • (714) 236-6088 


RE: 


It has come to my attention that, although this office has offered 
you ample opportunity and assistance to remedy the noise disturbance 
at the above address, the violation continues to be committed. 

It Is my regret, therefore, that we must request the issuance of a 
criminal complaint charging you with the commission of a misdemeanor. 
Enclosed is a synopsis of our findings and the charge which has been 
fonrrded to the prosecutor. Should you require further information, 
please call the City Prosecutor's office at 236-6220. 


G. W. CURTIS 

BUILDING INSPECTION DIRECTOR 



end osure 


57 






Exhibit 19 

Case Report to the City Prosecutor 


City of Son Diego 

Noise Abatement and Control Administration 
Building Inspection Department 

CASK IMPORT TO THE CITY FROGECUTOR 


1712 


DEFENDANT'S NAHE_;_ ADDRESS_ 

BirthcVite: _ Sex : _H n i r : _ Eves; _ Ke ioh t:_ Weig ht;_ 

CHARG E;__ TINE: 

Description of the complaint, including the latest occurrence: 


Chronological summary of facts : 

1- Date complaint was first filed.(Exhibit A) 

2. Date first warning was mailed to defendant.*.(Exhibit 1) 

3. Date second complaint was filed.(Exhibit A! 


4. Date surrounding neighbors within a 200 foot radius were contacted .(Exhibit C) 

5. Date letter was sent inviting attendance at the office hearing . . . (Exhibit F) 

6. Date hearing was convened by the Noise Abatement and Control Administration_ 

Hearinq Attendees Address 


Summary and conclusions of hearing ; 


7. Date Notify Warrant was requested, and notice of intent to 

prosecute mailed to defendant.. . (Exhibit G)_ 

Exhibits : 

A. Noise Complaint Record (record of office activity concerning this case]. 

B. Example of first notice sent to defendant. 

C. Plot map of the area showing defendant's property (highlighted) and the canplai . on' 
property (outlined in red). 

D. Example of cards used in polling the 200 foot radius area in the neighborhood. 

E. Data processing sheet with identification of property owners, and their resi:o..-.- , 

within a 200 foot radius circle depicted or. the plot map. 

F. Example of hearing notices. 

G. Example of letter mailed to defendant notifying that this office is forwarding l'. • 
case to the City Prosecutor with a request for prosecution. 


Investigator (;;) Assigned 

2/76 


JAMES K. OtJKES 
Administrator 
Date Approved_ 


58 

































Coordination of Noise 
Control Activities 
with Other City 
Departments and 
Agencies 


Although the goal of the San Diego Noise Control Program is the achieve¬ 
ment of compliance, the possibility of having to prosecute is never overlooked. 
While violators are allowed ample time and opportunity to comply, steps are 
taken to carefully document the entire process to facilitate court appearances, 
if required. Careful and effective documentation is an important element for 
achieving credibility and convictions in court cases. 

It may be recalled that the ordinance passed by the Council in September 1973 
was a weak law, and essentially only established the function of the Administra 
tor and placed enforceable limits on nuisance types of neighborhood noise 
sources, such as dog barking. Even today, 80 percent of the noise complaints 
registered directly with the office consist of dog barking. At the same time, 
however, few outsiders realize that the indirect control of noise through the 
enforcement of California statutes has penetrated the consciousness of the 
relevant administrative departments and the policy makers of the city. The 
noise issue has gained wide public awareness, and above all there is a great 
deal of momentum toward controlling noise disturbances in the city. 

While a short description of the office's cooperation with other depart¬ 
ments follows, it is useful to gain a broad view of the Administrator's involve 
ment with city departments. Noise control programs have been developed or are 
in the process of development with: 

• The Mayor's Office 

• The City Council 

• The City Attorney's Office 

• The Zoning Administration 

• The Police Department 

• The Environmental Quality Department 

• The Transportation Department 

• The Building Inspection Department 

• The Aquatic Division of the Parks and Recreation Department 

The Administrator also has cooperative programs with: 

• The Harbor Patrol 

• The Comprehensive Planning Organization 

• The Unified Port District of San Diego 

• The U. S. Border Patrol 

• Other jurisdictions of San Diego County, and 

• The Armed Forces (mainly Miramar Naval Air Station and Riem Field, a 
Navy heliport near the U. S,-Mexican border). 

The following material describes the decision-making associated with each 

of the administrative units and the output of each department affected by the 

, 45 

noise control program. 















The Mayor's office and individual city councilmen regularly transmit 
information to the Administrator by way of route slips. These route slips 
transmit on a regular basis noise complaints or some dissatisfaction with a 
noise decision from the members of the public. Route slips are usually 
answered within 3 days with a decision or answer by the Administrator reviewed 
by the Department Director. The route slips serve as a window into the 
Mayoral and Council offices and constitute a unique vehicle for the manager's 

office to be continuously in contact with the top political decision-makers 

c L . 46 

of the city. 

The Zoning Administration regularly consults with the Administrator on 
problems that may have an effect on public exposure to noise. These include 
future land uses, conditional variance, or variances applied for. The projects 
might be on a large scale, such as rezoning of a manufacturing area to com¬ 
mercial, or on a small scale, such as approving a home occupation permit (e.g., 

47 

piano teaching in a private home). 

The Administrator reviews plans for new subdivisions to determine whether 
future residents will be affected by noise. If the Administrator is not in 
agreement with the noise levels indicated in the plan, the owners of the sub¬ 
division will be asked to develop mitigation. Acousticians are available to 
aid developers if required. (A list of approved acousticians is included in 
Appendix J.) After the problem is corrected as recommended by the acoustician, 
a statement to that effect becomes part of the environmental impact statement. 
The statement then goes to the Subdivision Review Committee, to the Planning 
Department and to the Planning Commission. Depending on the importance of the 
case, it may then be forwarded to the Mayor and the Council. 

The Environmental Quality Division (EQD) occasionally works in concert with 
the noise Administrator to review environmental reports for adequacy of their 
noise statements. As a result, he may also develop a program which will be 
carried out by EQD. The department also works with land developers to make 
than aware of noise insulation requirements, and of aircraft overflight, 

ambient, and other noise problems. Through the noise office, EQD provides 

48 

literature on noise to prospective home buyers. 

The Transportation Department receives the full benefit of the Administra¬ 
tor's assistance, since he does most of the acoustical analyses for them. 
Principally, he calculates the noise impact exposure for a given situation 

which the Transportation Department is called on to solve. Typical examples 

49 

of work performed for the Transportation Department include: 

• A noise impact analysis of an FHWA-financed road widening (Appendix K), 

• Analysis of noise from trucks passing through and parked in a residen¬ 
tial area, 


60 






• Development of a computer program to calculate impact exposure, and 

• Recommendations for posting weight limits on a street with an elementary 
school located on it, thereby forcing noisy trucks to use different 
streets (Appendix L). 

The Building Inspection Department utilizes the step-by-step procedures 
developed by the Administrator for reviewing building plans submitted for 
approval. Sources of the most common problems are the omission of drywall 
behind shower stalls and tubs, the lack of acoustical sealant along floor/wall 
surface, and the waterfall effect from plastic pipes. The following procedure 
is used in reviewing proposed plans: 

• Builders submit their plans for noise control approval. 

• The plans are logged in by the office. 

• The plans are compared with noise contour limits of aircraft noise if 
the property is located in an aircraft overflight area (Exhibit 20). 

• The plans are then compared to the transportation noise contour limits 
based on the noise generated by the major highways passing through San 
Diego, and measured by traffic flow (Exhibit 21). 

• If the proposed building site is located within a community noise 
equivalent level greater than 60 decibels, the builder is notified by 
mail (Exhibit 22) of the requirement to submit an acoustical analysis 
report, which demonstrates that the exterior wall assemblies are ade¬ 
quate to attenuate exterior sound levels to interior levels not greater 
than 45 decibels community noise equivalent level. The most signifi¬ 
cant revision in the building plan under these circumstances is usually 
the installation of mechanical ventilation which will permit the win¬ 
dows of the proposed building to be kept closed for extended periods 

of time in order to mitigate the subject noise. The builder's next 
step is to have an acoustical analysis performed. The acoustician is 
responsible for the accuracy of the amended plans; therefore, his 
credibility is at stake. A sample of an acoustical analysis report is 
shown in Exhibit 23, as are diagrams of sound transmission controls 
produced by the Building Inspection Department. As new party wall 
designs are analyzed, they are added to the department's portfolio of 
acceptable sound reducing wall assemblies. The objective is to acquire 
the greatest number of alternative successful solutions to the problem 
as possible, thus minimizing future expense to the industry. 

• Once analysis is made, the acoustical firm stamps it for approval. 

• The Administrator approves building plans by stamping them (Exhibit 24). 

• During construction, the building inspector makes on-site inspections 
of actual construction against approved plans. In addition, buildings 
are checked for acceptable noise limits after completion. 


61 



Exhibit 20 


Examples of Transportation 


Noise Contour Limits 



MAHI 


:*•** 2IC60 lM£QUA7'£HK^ A/**OfiTT 


CITY 


'S. . ^ - 


Non* Contour Ow^tioni 1973 

— AIRCRAFT vif>oui >•*••• m 


- FREEWAYS ANO HIGHWAYS « O^.r— " Compr«»m.« Pljmi.n, C^nu.tK^ 
RAILROADS j .97°3 


62 








































































Exhibit 20 (continued) 

Examples of Transportation Noise Contour Limits 



63 

































































Exhibit 21 
Traffic Flow Map 



64 










































































Exhibit 22 


Notice for Acoustical Analysis Report 
(postcard) 


THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO 

BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT FLAN FILE NO. 

NOISE ABATEMENT OFFICE 


NOTICE FOR ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS REPORT 

JOB ADDRESS 


Plans for proposed construction at the above location have been reviewed by this 
office. The proposed work will be located within a Community Noise Equivalent 
Level (CNEL) contour area exceeding 60 decibels. 

Pursuant to the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25, CAC), an acoustical 
analysis report is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 

You are therefore advised to seek the assistance of a registered acoustical consultant 
in preparing the report. A list of approved acousticians is available from this office. 
Should you require further information, please call 236-5735. 





SAN DIEGO ACOUSTICS SAN DIEGO ACOUSTICS 


Exhibit 23 


Example of 


Acoustical Analysis Report 


3 m 

H 

M 

S i 


tz 

X *» 
< ► 
* 4 
w 2 

X - 


M A 

X o 

5? 


M 

o 2 



a 


1 

& 


M 

4> 

s 


fcX> 

a 

o> 

O 

O 

O 


•a 

& 



t- 

t- 

o 


o 

CM 

O 

< 
O , 


gp 

s "19 


V) 5Z 

0) O 
o 


cs 

a „ • 
S 3 z 


S B 


ss 

a. 

1* 

o 


. -X 

n u 
K «» 

^ J2 

rt fl 
"a! JS 
“Pn 
w 


oo 

9» 


IS 

t« 

53 

*3 

ii 


a> 

u 

O 

o 

•a 

:d 

w 


o 

o 

Q 


E* 

o 


1 fi 

& w 


§ 

H 

U 

£> 

Q 

O 

OS 

H 

2 


2 3 

2 b 

« 13 

ai 


(y C 

0 *4 'd 
</> -5 ** 
■a 

i 


! 3 j 


to 

<n 

o 

c 
o 
Co 
w . 

a 

s 

rt 


O 

to 


M 
D. 

05 

4i 

rx 
A 

a 

o 

-C ^ 
o d> 

3 
.3 

c 
0) 


5 OJ 

♦“* rt» 


c u 

fi 2 

o) q 
M £ 

si 

05 o 

k cS 

—. o 

3 2 
8 J 

k. 

4> 01 
p. 2 

Gil 

2 <° 
•M oi 

<u 5 

X s 


10 

o to 

U o a 
q “ s 

4» 2 
>• •* 

2 4) 

... V) 

>.05 

v S w 

cu H rt 
° to 3 
rt £ . 
Jo-: 

S-H 8 

.* gis 

° U 
O 

X w JJ* 
^ w « 
a 

2i: 

Sal 

*ZS 


3 S 


u 

o 

# O 

Q 

O 


cm cm cm cm 
to to to to 


CO to CO I/O 
OJ CM O M* 
CM H 


o O co in 
co y in y 
n cm h 


5 • ' 


CM CM CM CM 
to to to to 


CO tO 00 Ml 
OJ CM O 'M* 

nhh 


O CO b* Irt 
coomy 


$ • v 


o o 
c c 
(0 

a o 

.H C 
g * 


cn 


.2 -2 


- 2 

c sd 

a, 3 

8 3 
2 « 
«s 

c5 c 

s .2 

.c w 

u w 

C4 g 
4> ti 


O 

k< 

<X) * 

o. y>-° 

O 

S C M* 

W ^ 05 

O S > 
—• 2: o> 

O ^ ^4 

»/» -C 

!2 rt u 


. a * 3 

111 ? 
nJ o» 


CO 

2; 

o 

to 

£> 

cl 

O 

K 

o 

o 

I 

CO 

H 


14 

« 8 

Q 


^1 

t\ 


o | | I O I I I 


"r v in P v v in o> 

N « H N « n 


oooo oooo 
IiJi-in j x M 5 

9 0 s k rt q « os <4 

m « « 3 «p3« 


B 

VI 

2 

^ V) ^ 

V) 

o 

(4 

o 

►H 

D 

to 

a 

M* 

H 

CO 

H 

14 

-«-* 

05 ^ > 

—’ T3 

Q "3 w 

fi 

C5 o 

o 

3 

U 

as 

o 

o 

« 

00 

1 

<7> 

•3 

05 

►a 

H 

a 

0) 

a 

05 

► 

6.0 

A-* 

•a 

& 

• 

t- 

H 

to 

• 

CM 



to 

«-3 

H 

w 

Q 

tg 

H 


o 

« 


c 

5 O 

•C * 

> o 

s a 

Is 
w « 

4. a 
05 

3 5 

r—« ^ 

05 

•g 41 

oSm 

- s 

CO H 
H in 

^ c- 

*1 t o 

O rH 
J 8>. 
c s SI 

o g 
_ o 

^ § 

Ef . 

o .5 g. 

O -o c 

—• g 

« 3 ° 

ago 

*- o 

5 . to 

6 in «J 


UJ — 

IS| 


05 

05 ^ • 

a „-3 2 

*"* O ‘3 05 

w 

•“? a ® g 

« 

g a* g 

iOgi 

slsi 

I: 

w 

C 
o 


a cm 

d<*> 


.3^o 
^ ° 




^ > 
w S "8 
c 

W) 0) r 

* rt £ B, 

05 D 

*> ^ P 

O..E 

c E 3 
:5a^ 
a^'s s 

.S ^ w 05 
c - C5 

I § io 

*9 TJ 2 

|s ^ 

a *a * 


to 

. 

1 43 
V) 
<0 


c 
. o 


. 3 

; -o 


xj 

c.| 

05 V) 


.2 2 
U) TJ 

•r u 

o 

o 

05 

U 


05 

os5 


~ o —i *» 

So- 
O 2 .2 3 

4> J rt "g 

o o jo 2 

Sj g «fl 

S o£ % 

a, V 3 ii 


a 

< 

H 

w 

Q 

55 

O 

P 

o 

D 

g 

to 

Z 

O 

O 


Si SS -Z 


66 


Built-up root, 112" plywood sheeting, 2x8 rafters * U6e TL for 1/4" plate 

16" o.c., R~ 19 insulation, l/2"drywall. 















Exhibit 23 (continued) 

Example of Acoustical Analysis Report 


SAN DIEGO ACOUSTICS 


COWIN c HAM** 
<TI4» SI4 lift 


C*MKI • TANMU 
|VI4) «!• !•«) 


The partywall will provide an STC In excess ofthe minimum required value 
of 50 and Is In compliance. 

The floor /celling combination provides STC aral AC ratings In excess of 
requirements and is in compliance. 

In summary, the rooms meet all interior noise level requirements. 



Acoustical Engineer 


• a* HORNSLCNO STRICT • SAN C*£GO CALIFORNIA 92104 


67 




Exhibit 23 (continued) 

Example of Acoustical Analysis Report 



• • , *• 

, •• * ». , 


ETBUCTURU O^TA'.S -V 



teSSvfSSSsfiswpss 

g^jff^csKSiSSH 


Egjgggggaraggs 




—U-l- 





•undu NO. 



CITY or SAM oieco 


Jssja.. . *. 



BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT 


SOUNO TRANSMISSION CONTROL 



PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL DETAIL* 





ELECTRICAL OUTLETS 


© 



ryZ *[“***** jTU 


>* 44 FIXTURES 





68 



















































































Exhibit 24 


Approval or Disapproval Stamp 
Used for Building Plans 


[Miff 

S' 

■p 



m 11 

i) 





An Approved Acoustical Analysis Report IS/IS NOT Required 

pursuant to the California Noise Insulation Standards 
(effective 8-22-74) prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 

Ambient Noise Levels • Time and Date of Survey 


For further information call the San Diego City Noise 
Abatement and Control Office 236-5735 







































The Aquatic Division , part of the Parks and Recreation Department, enforces 
watercraft noise limits under the California Harbors and Navigation Code. The 
Noise Office assisted the division's efforts by developing procedures to meas¬ 
ure noise on boats, providing demonstrations, assisting in purchasing equipment, 
and setting up testing procedures. Now, the division carries out the work on 
its own, although the Noise Office is still involved in recommending changes 
from time to time. For example, the latest recommendation was to use a permit 
procedure in whicli a noise test is performed at the same time that the boat is 
certified for safety. The idea is to assist the division in the enforcement 
of the law, instead of taking over its reponsibi1ities.^^ (A newspaper clip¬ 
ping describing the work of the division is given in Appendix M.) 

The Police Department was not involved immediately after the ordinance 
was passed; however, the Administrator made a special effort to work out enforce¬ 
ment procedures with them. This interface has proven to be effective in the 
enforcement of the ordinance. 

The procedure is as follows. When a complaint other than barking dogs is 
received by the police, a unit is dispatched, provided a vehicle is available 
and not engaged in a higher priority call. For example, the standing problem 
of university student parties is sometimes pursued by the police as well as by 
the Administrator. Police must decide whether to take action under the noise 
limits provisions or the public nuisance provisions of the ordinance. On the 
other hand, some noise problems, such as construction noise, are referred 
immediately to the Office of the Administrator. Overlapping and difficult 
problems are discussed with the Administrator. (Noise complaints which are 
made to the Administrator but are police problems are referred to the police. 
These include disturbances such as phantom motorcycle riders and noisy motor 
vehicles.) 

Interface with police includes the following: The Administrator occasion¬ 
ally accompanies police officers in the field, about once a month. This 
includes, for example, monitoring noise levels of downtown bars, land parties, 
or fraternity houses. If the noise level is found to be too high, the police 

officer goes into the establishment and tells the owner to correct the noise 
53 

situation. The police also monitor open music festivals for authorized 

decibel limits (after a variance permit has been obtained from the Administrator 

54 

and Parks and Recreation Department). Occasionally, the Administrator and 
the Police Department also work together on construction noise from equipment 
operated before 7 a.m,~^ Sometimes noisy motor vehicle problems come up that 
also require the intervention of the Police Department; however, these are 
rare, since the California muffler requirements are strict and the California 
Highway Patrol works the freeways of the city at four locations.^ 


70 




The Police Department seldom uses noise-measuring equipment in their 
enforcement efforts. Instead, if sound level measurements are required, the 
Noise Office is brought in for assistance. The police have become more willing 
to enforce the noise laws since they are able to deal in a definitive manner 
with problems. Thus, the Administrator backs up police cases with meter read¬ 
ings if requested. Also he has proposed the use of sound level meters by 
supervisors of patrol units. (To date, the courts have not challenged the 
readings of sound level meters.)^ 

In addition, other jurisdictions receive assistance from the Administrator 
in their noise-related programs. For example, the Miramar Naval Air Station 
Study utilized the services of the office. The Administrator served as chair¬ 
man of the study which prepared and updated the land use strategy by defining 

58 

Community Noise Equivalent Level contours from 60 to 80 decibels. 

The Administrator is likely to contribute in a study to update the exist¬ 
ing ground transportation noise contours. The project involves the preparation 
of a Community Noise Equivalent Level prediction model, an extensive verifica¬ 
tion experiment, and preparation of a FORTRAN IV program to ensure that the 
system is useful to regional municipalities at the lowest cost. It is con¬ 
templated that such a model can be constructed with a high degree of reliability, 
because accurate records of traffic volumes on city streets throughout the 

•V! 59 

region are accessible. 

The office has worked closely with the U.S. Border Patrol at the Riem 
Field Heliport near the U.S.-Mexico Border. Residents in the border area of 
San Ysidro petitioned Region IX of the Environmental Protection Agency about 
possible unnecessary use of helicopters by the Border Patrol. Residents are 
particularly annoyed by low-flying helicopters patrolling during the late 
evening and early morning hours for illegal aliens crossing into the United 
States. The city noise abatement staff reviewed standard patrol routes and 
schedules, in cooperation with the Border Patrol, for possible litigation. 
Written recommendations were then transmitted to the Border Patrol.^ 

The office is also involved in the recent Lindbergh Field (San Diego 
International Airport) noise variance case. The Unified Port District (UPD), 
operator of the airport, is required to obtain variance from the California 
Airport Noise Regulations (CAC, Title 4) each year until 1980 or until com¬ 
pliance is met. The Administrator's newsletter reported on this noise 
problem as follows 

The Noise Abatement and Control Board will be proposing 
that the City Council support the imposition of new 
conditions on the 1977 variance granted by the State. 

The conditions would include requirements for the UPD 
to disclose more information gained through its eight 
monitoring stations within the City of San Diego. In 
the past, the Port Authority has taken this low profile 


71 


Case Studies 


Case I: Excessive 
Hospital Equipment 
Noise 


position, presumably to avoid litigation. It appears, 
however, that this measure has not really protected the 
Port and at the same time has engendered public sympathy 
for those residents subjected to airport use noise. 

Should the Port Authority be required to disclose the 
information as proposed, the office would be greatly 
assisted in enforcing current state laws and advising 
planning staff of noise impact. 

The City Council unanimously passed a resolution to act 
as Intervenor at the hearing in the San Diego Port 
District variance application to continue operating San 
Diego International Airport as a "noisy airport," pur¬ 
suant to the Division of Aeronautics Regulations 
(CAC, Title 4). 

The Port Authority has indicated recently that some 
additional information concerning Community Noise 
Equivalent Level contours from 65 to 80 decibels may be 
possible to prepare. It is hoped all areas of interest 
defined in the resolution can be negotiated with the 
Port Authority prior to the hearing. Representatives 
from the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, 

D.C. and San Francisco have expressed interest in attend¬ 
ing the variance application proceedings and appear to 
be sympathetic with the City and County's positions. 

This section presents three case histories that provide additional insight 
into the enforcement and administration of the noise control program. The 
histories have been condensed, but the content has been left unaltered. All 
sound measurements were recorded on the A-weighted sound level scale. 


This case involved a complaint filed against a city hospital located in San 
Diego, The hospital operated a central air conditioning system and a standby 
power unit that produced noise levels that exceeded San Diego City Ordinance 
levels. A formal complaint was filed with the Office of Noise Abatement and 
Control by residents of the area. Because the air conditioning system is 
operated virtually continuously, its A-weighted sound level should not exceed 
55 decibels at the property line. A reduction of 17 decibels was required 
for compliance with the noise ordinance. The standby power unit was only 
operated (other than for emergency use) for 30 minutes per week between 7 a.m. 
and 7 p.m. Therefore, by law it could not exceed 65 decibels at the property 
line. A 22 decibel reduction was required for compliance. 

On August 27, 1975, a formal complaint was registered against the hospital. 
The noise office performed an onsite investigation of the situation on September 
5, 1975. The investigation was followed up by obtaining measurements on Novem¬ 
ber 2, 1975. The hospital notified the office of its desire to apply for a 
variance, and a variance application was mailed on December 22, 1975. 


72 


Case II: Barking 
Dog Complaint63 


During the next several months, a change in hospital administration 
caused some delays in the case. However, on June 17, 1976, the new hospital 
administration contacted the office stating its desire to comply with the 
ordinance. On July 6, 1976, the office mailed the hospital a letter explain¬ 
ing the procedures for obtaining compliance through a variance application, 
public hearing, and an acoustical analysis report. The hospital applied for a 
variance, and on July 8, 1976, public hearing notices were released on the 
hearing. On July 22, 1976, the public meeting was held and a variance was 
issued based on the abatement plans presented. A certified.acoustical 
analysis report was received on August 12, 1976, and approved by the office. 

The hospital began its abatement procedures after notice of approval was 
received. 

Another case involved a barking dog complaint. The initial complaint was 
received by the office on February 2, 1977. The accused was mailed an initial 
warning letter on February 3, 1977, describing the violation and additional 
actions to be taken if the situation was not corrected. A second complaint 
was received by the office on February 14, 1977. The office conducted an 
onsite investigation on February 25, 1977. 

The onsite investigation revealed that a 4-month-old puppy was usually 
kept outside in a back yard. Because of the puppy's age, the field investigator 
recommended that the electric bark-training collar device not be used. How¬ 
ever, use of the newly created hound collar was recommended as soon as the 
product was available. The defendant was further instructed to keep the dog 
inside the house. The accused informed the investigator that when the dog 
reached 6 months old, it would be taken to obedience training school. The 
accused was told that if another complaint was received, a hearing would be 
scheduled. Adjacent neighbors were polled and several supported the complaint. 
The complainant was apprised of the status of the case. 

Between March 7 and April 18, 1977, four additional complaints were 
received about the dog. Another field investigation was conducted on April 
20, 1977. The accused's daughter was contacted and informed of the dog 
problem. The daughter was very uncooperative and stated that other dogs 
barked in the neighborhood, too. The defendant's daughter was informed con¬ 
cerning the scheduled hearing. On April 26, 1977, hearing letters were mailed 
to complainants and the defendant. The hearing was held on May 11, 1977, but 
the defendant did not appear. 

When he failed to appear for the scheduled hearing, the accused was noti¬ 
fied by certified mail that further violations would result in criminal pros¬ 
ecution. Copies of this letter were mailed to all the complainants. The 
accused notified the office on May 20, 1977, that he was keeping the dog in 


73 


the house and that the dog did not bark anymore. On June 2, 1977, another 
neighborhood poll was conducted as part of the office's follow-up procedure. 
A number of residents filed additional complaints concerning the barking dog 
problem. As a result, the case was forwarded to the City Attorney's Office 
for criminal prosecution. The owner was convicted. 


Case III: Noisy 
Commercial Establish¬ 
ment^ 


Case III involved a commercial establishment located near a residential zone. 
During early morning operations, residents were disturbed by trucks loading 
and unloading, loud music, and yelling at the establishment. The initial 
warning was sent to the accused on September 1, 1976. On September 3, 1976, 
the accused notified the Noise Office that he was taking corrective measures 
to abate the disturbances. However, the complainant notified the office that 
the police had to be called to the premises at 3:03 a.ra. and again at 6:20 
a.m. on September 9, 1976, A field investigation of the premises conducted on 
that same day revealed that the truck loading problem had been resolved but 
that the loud yelling and music had not. The police were called to the 
premises again on September 13, 1976. 

A hearing was held on September 22, 1976, concerning the noise problems, 
and the Administrator recommended that the business be relocated. On September 
26, 1976, the Administrator contacted the defendant and notified him that 
further noise disturbances would result in prosecution and suggested that the 
defendant consider moving the business to a commercial zone within 30 days. 

On September 30, 1976, a request was received from the accused for an extension 
of the 30-day requirement. In addition, a number of complaints were also 
received that same day concerning early morning disturbances. 

On October 5, 1976, the Administrator notified all complainants by mail 
that further legal action would be postponed pending the 30-day period for 
relocation or another noise disturbance in violation of the San Diego Municipal 
Code, whichever came first. Further complaints were received on October 28 to 
support evidence that the company had not moved or appeared to be considering 
moving. The case was prepared for criminal prosecution on November 5, 1976. 

The owner was convicted, 


****** 

These three cases demonstrate the philosophy and intent of the program's 
enforcement efforts. Obtaining compliance to the noise ordinance is the prime 
objective. The Administrator usually provides adequate time and assistance in 
aiding violators. It is not until all procedures have been exhausted through 
the compliance procedures that criminal prosecution actions are taken. 


74 


State of California 
Laws Enforced 


In addition to having authority under the San Diego Municipal Noise Control 
Ordinance, the noise control office is able to enforce specific State noise 
control laws. A number of the preemptive State laws were enacted before the 
noise control office gained momentum. Initially, the office only enforced the 
city ordinance. As competence and knowledge in the noise control area developed, 
the office became aware of the preemptive State laws and became active in those 
specific areas of noise control. The State laws increased the office's spectrum 
of enforceability in noise control. 

The preemptive State noise control laws enforced by the city are listed 
below.^ 

• The California Noise Control Act of 1973 established the Office of 
Noise Abatement and Control for the State of California. The law 
established the State's goals and objectives to aid and support cities 
in developing noise control programs and to protect the general welfare 
and health of State residents. 

• The California Vehicle Noise Level Limits established manufacturing 
code limits, 

• The California Vehicle Sound Level Limits established drive-by tests 
for measuring vehicle noise in actual situations on the highway. These 
are enforced by the Highway Patrol, 

• The California Noise Planning and Land Use Act is basically a generic 
act and is responsible for the noise element requirements of general 
development plans. 

• The California Motor Boat Noise Regulations are part of the Harbor and 
Navigations Code. The regulations established drive-by tests for 
measuring sound level limits emitted by watercraft. 

• The California Regulation on Freeway Noise Affecting Classrooms was 
proposed by the Unified School District. The law requires an interior 
level of 45 decibels for classrooms. 

• The California Noise Insulation Standard (Title 25) established the 

building requirement for interior sound level limits at 45 decibels, 

CNEL and for party wall construction not to exceed an STC of 50 decibels 

66 

STC or an IIC of 50 decibels for floor to ceiling assemblies. 

• The California Noise Control Safety Orders established the California 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration and occupational safety 
requirements. 

• The California Department of Aeronautics Regulations (Title IV) 
established sound level limits restricting the operation of airports 
within the State of California. This administrative code regulates 
the proprietor of the airport by restricting the community noise 


75 



equivalent level caused by the airport operation when it exceeds 

stated standards for land use compatibility. 

• The California Noise Limits for Aircraft deals with entrance or access 

to airports by any supersonic aircraft. Specific regulations were 

developed to limit supersonic aircraft from landing in the state. 

Equipment 

The city of San Diego was quite fortunate to have the Navy's Acoustical Center 

and other easily accessible sources for obtaining equipment. The Navy was 

cooperative and sympathetic to the cause and efforts of the program. The city 

owned one sound level meter when the program started. Currently the city owns 

two time-averaging sound level meters, with printers and calibrators, plus two 

hand-held sound level meters. The city is planning to acquire additional 

equipment with time-integrating capability in the future. Although the equip¬ 
ment owned by the city is quite limited, the noise control office has been 

able to borrow equipment from various local sources such as the EPA Regional 

Office in San Francisco. The expertise of well-known acousticians and noise 

control related personnel of the local area has also aided the program's 

efforts. 

Statistics of 
Enforcement^^ 

The true extent and long-term beneficial effort of the noise abatement program 

in San Diego are apparent from the office workload data presented in Exhibits 

25, 26, and 27. 

The complaint registration program was developed with the enthusiastic 

support of San Diego residents. Although 85 percent of the cases represent 

complaints about dog barking, the Administrator has gradually been able to 

extend the scope of the program to cover virtually all noise making activities 

These programs hold the promise of getting noise levels under control and 

making habitation pleasant in both urban and suburban surroundings. 

In Exhibit 25, the drop from 7,700 complaint registrations to 2,320 com¬ 
plaints received is explained by the fact that complaint registration forms 

are utilized by citizens as a show of force. That is, when one resident is 

complaining to another resident about a particular noise, the complaint 

registration form is shown as evidence that in fact the office does exist and 

that there is a formalized procedure for registering noise complaints in San 

Diego. In some cases, it should be noted, complainants apparently change 

their minds about the worthiness of the problem to require a governmental 

agency to become involved. Complaining witnesses are asked to contact the 

person they are accusing before sending in the form. However, if for some 

reason they do not want to contact the party in question, the complaint is 

processed with the same dispatch as any other complaint. However, the com¬ 
plainant is asked to explain his or her reasons for this reluctance to 


76 


Exhibit 25 


Estimated 1977 Workload Breakdown 


68 


Complaint Registration 


Forms Mailed 

7,700 

Complaints Received 

2,320 

Field Investigations Conducted 

1,247 

Hearings Held 

190 

Court Appearances 

30 

Criminal Cases Filed 

15 


Exhibit 26 

Breakdown of Complaints 
Received by Types^ 


Barking dogs 

85% 

Music 

5% 

Early morning trash pick-up 

2% 

Early morning construction 

2% 

Roosters 

1% 

Motorcycles 

1% 

Miscellaneous (vehicle repairs, 

4% 

transformers, chanting, etc.) 

100% 


77 





Exhibit 27 

1977 Workload Breakdown Other Than Complaint Registrations 


Route Slips Completed 

Consulting with Zoning Administration 

Land Use Review 

Review of Variances 

Rome Occupational Permits Reviewed 

Consulting with Planning Department 

Environmental Impact Reports Reviewed 

Environmental Quality Division 

Occasional Review of Impact Statement 

Transportation Department 

Noise Impact Analysis 
Development of Computer Programs 

Building Inspection Department 

Building Plans Reviewed 

Aquatic Division 

Work Out Noise Permit Procedures 

Police Department 

Complaints Received 

Advise on Noise Matters 

Monitor Parks & Rec. Dept. Events 

Construction Equipment Noise 

Motor Vehicle Problems 

Recommendations, i.e. , Use of Equipment 

Other Noise Related Programs 

Assisting Other Jurisdictions 
Ground Transportation Project 
Miramar Naval Air Station Study 
Lindbergh Field Noise Variance Project 
U.S. Border Patrol Project 


% 


77 


Occasional 

Occasional 

2500 


50 


Occasional 

35 

Occasional 

600 

Occasional 

Incl. above 
Occasional 
Occasional 
Occasional 
Occasional 
Occasional 


Occasional 

Occasional 

Occasional 

Occasional 

Occasional 


78 




communicate. It has been the experience of the noise office that encouraging 
communication between neighbors has not only reduced the necessity for tax 
money investment in nonserious problems but has also gone a long way toward 
mending fences. 

Approximately one-half of the complaints required field investigations; 
most complaints are solved before that step is necessary. Field investigations 
usually require about one trip to the site per case. Most noise complaints 
requiring field investigations are solved at the hearing stage, with only 
relatively few going to court. 

The most advanced and well-established noise abatement program is with 
the Police Department. The Administrator has also put in numerous hours work¬ 
ing with the police (because of the obvious overlap between noise and distur¬ 
bance cases), which has resulted in cooperation between the two offices. The 
Environmental Quality Division, which prepares environmental impact reports 
used by the Mayor and City Council in making land-use planning decisions, is 
a frequent user of the services provided by the Noise Abatement and Control 
Office. This is understandable since the Administrator was once part of the 
Environmental Division, and successful noise control is in the best interests 
of the department. The program for noise control of boats has also been well 
developed, again requiring only occasional contact with the Aquatic Division. 

Other programs such as noise reduction in buildings and noise level con¬ 
siderations in zoning are well underway. Approximately 600 building plans are 
reviewed each year, as well as 2,500 home occupational permits, plus all sub¬ 
division plans. 

The most difficult noise problems to control are created by the military 
and by ground transportation. The first are caused mainly by activities con¬ 
ducted in the interests of national defense. Ground transportation presents a 
problem because the ambient noise level generated by traffic is often higher 
than the noise limit established in the ordinance. At this time there are no 
adequate solutions to these problems. 

However, major projects are underway. The 35 cases indicated in Exhibit 

26 represent only the most urgent and pressing cases of noise generated by 

traffic (and complained about). Ten cases have been challenged in court, 

mainly on litigation.^ In some instances, there is no need to go to court 

because there are other effective ways of achieving compliance. For example, 

a construction company could be placed on the city's list of unapproved bidders, 

72 

which enhances the likelihood of voluntary compliance with the ordinance. 

In summary, the enforcement methodology and effectiveness of the noise 
control program is directly related to the program's administration and 
philosophy. Enforcement procedures are activated through the compliance 
philosophy of the office, whether enforcement is accomplished by resolving 


79 


registered complaints or by intergovernmental coordination and cooperation of 
city agencies involved in noise control issues. The Noise Office relies to a 
great extent on technology, research and development to resolve noise control 
issues and readily assists violators in achieving compliance. However, the 
Noise Office is also capable of enforcing the program quite effectively in 
court, which is exemplified by its conviction record. Although the program 
can effectively enforce the ordinance outside or inside the courts, it prefers 
to achieve compliance without punitive court actions. Therefore, the program 
measures its success by the number of cases in which violators voluntarily 
comply with the ordinance without going through costly court proceedings. 


80 


Budget 


The purpose of this section is to present budgetary information on the oper¬ 
ation, administration, and enforcement activities performed by the Office of 
Noise Abatement and Control. The noise control office works both directly and 
indirectly with a number of city agencies to effectively administer its program. 
Although city agencies such as the Zoning Administration, Planning Department, 
Transportation Department, and other appropriate agencies are involved in some 
aspects related to the administration and enforcement of the program, their 
budgetary information will not be presented. 

The initial budget for the noise control office was approximately $25,000. 
This amount was for a 9-month period, and was used primarily for the payment 
of salaries. During this time the office was budgeted for minimal equipment 
acquisition. However, as the program developed and the needs of the program 
increased, so did its budget. 

In fiscal year 1976, the total program budget was $44,078. Of that 
amount, $36,519 was appropriated for salaries and other personnel-related ex¬ 
penses. The remaining $7,559 was for equipment and nonpersonnel-related dis¬ 
bursements. 

The following year's budget (fiscal year 1977) was approved for a total 
program amount of $55,300. Salaries and personnel-related expenses totaled 
$40,318; equipment needs and non-personnel-related expenses were $14,982. 

The recently approved fiscal year 1978 budget is for a program total of 
$104,079. Salaries and personnel-related expenses total $84,897. The remain¬ 
ing amount of $19,182 is for nonpersonnel expenses and equipment acquisitions. 
The budget for fiscal year 1979 has not been developed or projected, but it is 
anticipated that this budget will include appropriations for salary increases 
comparable to the cost-of-living index and considerations for more equipment 
acquisition. 

Presently, the Noise Office is budgeted for an administrator, an assist¬ 
ant, one investigator, and two clerical staff members (clerk typist and 
stenographer). The office is in the process of selecting an assistant admin¬ 
istrator. From a staffing point of view, the office lacks sufficient manpower. 


81 


From a budgetary viewpoint, the operating budget seems to be sufficient, given 
the existing manpower, although a number of equipment needs are still unmet. 
However, within the existing budget and manpower, the office is administering 
an effective noise control program. 


82 


Program Evaluation 


Accomplishments 


The San Diego Noise Control Ordinance was the starting point for the noise 
control program. The ordinance established an Office for Noise Abatement and 
Control with an Administrator to enforce the law. The office was established 
primarily to serve as a central place for registering complaints. However, 
little did anyone envision the complexity of the problem or the extent of the 
office’s involvement in noise control. 

When the noise control program in San Diego is analyzed or evaluated, the 
basic concepts and objectives of the program should be kept in mind. The 
noise control program was initially instituted to offer citizens a central 
place for registering complaints. In addition, the program was structured to 
control the level of noise in the city through compliance procedures and inter¬ 
governmental coordination. The short-range objectives or goals were being 
achieved through the compliance procedures instituted, whereas the long-range 
issues can be resolved only through interagency coordination and land-use 
planning. This chapter presents an evaluation of the accomplishments, un¬ 
resolved issues, and future plans of the noise control program. 

The success of the noise control program may be attributed to the enforceability 
of the ordinance and to effective program administration. The tone of the pro¬ 
gram was set by a realistic ordinance that provided quantifiable and enforceable 
standards. The ordinance delegated the Administrator sufficient powers to 
effectively administer and enforce the program. Program goals are being achiev¬ 
ed through an administration that displays a realistic and innovative attitude 
toward resolving noise control issues. 

Since complaint registration was a major component of the program, public 
awareness had to be stimulated. Before the ordinance was passed, many citizens 
were unaware of the ill effects of noise, of what could be done to resolve noise 
disturbances, and where to go for assistance. The successful and continuing 
public awareness element of the program has educated citizens about noise issues 
and resolutions. Public awareness has served as a mechanism for achieving valu¬ 
able feedback from those whom noise affects most—the residents of the city. 


83 


A 


Before this educational process was instituted, most complaints were re¬ 
lated to public nuisance noises. However, complaints are being registered to¬ 
day about early trash pick-ups, construction noise, amplified music, and other 
similar disturbances about which citizens had not previously voiced complaints. 
The public awareness that has been stimulated during the last 4 years has 
changed citizens' attitudes about noise and the way in which they deal with 
noise disturbances. 

The stimulation of public awareness enabled the Noise Office to identify 
the short-range problems of the city. This identification of short-range 
problems enabled the Noise Office to develop and implement an effective system 
for resolving these issues. The method of compliance and the procedures 
established to achieve compliance have proven effective in controlling specif¬ 
ic noise issues in the area. The system developed to resolve complaints 
through the office's research and development concept provides for effective 
enforcement by compliance procedures, rather than through costly punitive 
court actions. However, as discussed earlier in the enforcement chapter, 
punitive measures are used if violators choose not to comply. 

Through the program, a framework has been developed for effectively 
coordinating other city agencies' efforts in noise control related to their 
specific activities or jurisdictions. Through this type of cooperation and 
coordination, noise control has become an issue in building inspections, 
transportation, zoning, land-use planning, environmental analyses, and in 
policy and decisionmaking. In a sense, the Noise Office supplies the needs 
of other city agencies as related to noise control. 

In supplying this type of assistance, and through resolving short- 
range problems, the office has developed a considerable amount of competence. 
The actual ordinance is only a small portion of the total program. The 
research and development concept is much broader than the ordinance itself. 

The competence and credibility which the office now possesses have been ob¬ 
tained largely through its research and development activities. 

Currently, the noise control program is performing other duties besides 
code enforcement. The program is involved in areas of noise control that 
were not envisioned during its conception. The program's short-range success 
has enabled it to get established and to develop competence in the noise 
control area. 

In summary, the noise control program has been effective and successful in 
accomplishing: 

• The development and continuance of public awareness about noise con¬ 
trol and the effects of noise; 

• The development and implementation of a framework to resolve short- 
range noise control issues or problems; 


84 


• The development and implementation of a framework to coordinate efforts 
of other city agencies in solving short- and long-range noise control 
issues and problems; and 

• The development of competence in the area of noise control as related 
to enforcement of the ordinance, revisions of standards and quantita¬ 
tive requirements of the ordinance, land-use planning activities, en¬ 
forcement of State noise control laws, and research and development 
activities. 

In view of the accomplishments, the noise control program has provided 
the citizens with a means of controlling their immediate environment. Through 
the noise control program, citizens of San Diego have an opportunity to enjoy 
a quality of life that is in their best interest. Letters are often received 
from residents expressing their appreciation to the Office of Noise Abate¬ 
ment and Control for assisting them in securing comfort and peace. The 
noise control techniques and procedures developed by the noise control ad¬ 
ministration are of paramount importance to the quality of life the residents 
of San Diego are experiencing and to the program's continued success. In 
addition, the motivation of the Administrator has proved to be an invaluable 
asset to the San Diego noise control program. 

Unresolved Issues The San Diego Office of Noise Abatement and Control considers transportation- 

related issues and source regulation as the primary unresolved problems in the 
noise control program. The office views these issues as areas of noise con¬ 
trol that are too complex for municipal involvement alone. 

Noise control in the areas of transportation and source regulation could 
be greatly improved through technology and assistance from appropriate gov¬ 
ernmental agencies. The office considers these issues as national problems 
that could be alleviated by stringent regulation and labeling procedures. 

The office strongly believes that a National Association of Noise 
Officials is needed as a unifying factor for municipal noise control. The 
success of any municipal noise control program usually lies with the know¬ 
ledge and motivation of the individual responsible for the program. Few 
local budgets can afford the expense of transporting local noise officials to 
other jurisdictions for communication and information purposes. The result 
has been a lack of national direction in noise, especially at the municipal 
level. It is thought that such an organization would serve the needs of 
municipalities by eliminating conflicting municipal noise standards and 
methods of analysis. 


85 


Future Plans 


The administration of the noise control program in San Diego is an on-going 
function. As the program continues in operation on a day-to-day basis, certain 
issues may surface that require policy decisions. The process of analyzing 
the program in this manner is quite important in determining the direction and 
activities the program will assume. This section discusses those projected 
future activities. 

The Office of Noise Abatement and Control is based on the idea of providing 
assistance to those in need. This has been the office's underlying philosophy 
throughout the enforcement of the noise control program. The office plans to 
continue this type of enforcement philosophy to achieve future compliance. The 
Administrator will continue to delegate the rules, procedures, and policies his 
office has formulated to settle program problems effectively. In connection 
with this, the Administrator recommends that the Animal Regulation Department 
assume responsibility for the barking dog problem. The Noise Office feels that 
the Animal Regulation Department could administer and handle the problem more 
effectively, especially since the noise control office has developed effective 
solutions. 

In the area of budgetary matters, the budget will probably remain at 
substantially the same level. Increases will be experienced as a result of 
salary increases and because of equipment purchases, but other than that, the 
budget is not projected to change appreciably. 

The enforcement area of the program will probably see some increases. 

These increases will be experienced primarily by the Police Department. How¬ 
ever, the cost increases will be more cost effective because there will be a 
way to handle problems. Changes in the ordinance will provide the police with 
more effective procedures for performing their duties. 

The organizational and administrative structure will remain the same. 
Initially, the office was in the Planning Department. However, it was later 
placed in an operational agency of the City Building Inspections Department, 
to have more of an operational function than a planning function. This move 
expedited building plans. The placement of the office in an operational 
capacity as opposed to a planning capacity has enhanced enforcement efforts. 

The Noise Office has been and will continue to be active in making noise 
control proposals to the State. Areas of active involvement include munici¬ 
pal noise regulations, aircraft proprietor noise regulations, airport land- 
use regulations, and source regulations. 

As discussed earlier, the office plans to continue its publicity cam¬ 
paign in a similar manner. There will be additional cable television programs 
on noise, especially in the area of building inspections, how to make an en¬ 
closure for swimming pool pumps, methods of training barking dogs, and details 


86 


on the enforcement of the ordinance. Aspects related to the effects of noise 
on humans will be presented to some degree during the continuing publicity pro 
gram. 

The Administrator views his role as increasing in the area of stimulating 
cooperation among other city and State agencies. Several local agencies have 
initiated efforts to write their own legislation. The issue of noise control 
is beginning to be dealt with more as a whole, and there is a great need to 
maintain effective cooperation. 

The noise control office projects a need for more equipment. There will 
be a need to perform more octave band analyses in activities related to build¬ 
ing construction. A need for a time-averaging sound level meter also exists 
in the category of equipment needed for projected activities. Also, an 
additional engineer is needed to solve personnel problems related to projected 
activities. 

In analyzing past activities and defining trends in the noise control pro 
gram, the Noise Office is able to resolve issues before they become major 
problems. This type of analysis and the use of innovative techniques by the 
Noise Office have proven to be an asset to the noise control program. 


87 


Footnotes 


1. The quotation is from the EPA Contract No. 68-01-3845. 

2. City of San Diego, It's A Big Problem , Public Service Announcement, 
Citizens Assistance and Information Department, May 1977, estimates San 
Diego's dog population at 180,000 (800,000 people). The District of 
Columbia's dog population is estimated at 70,000 (722,000 population). 

3. Citizens Assistance and Information Department, City of San Diego A Guide 
to Your City Government , January 1977. 

4. The San Diego Chamber of Commerce, Research Department, San Diego: A Gen¬ 
eral Description , May 1976. 

3. Ibid. 

6. San Diego City Planning Department, City of San Diego, Population and Land 
Use Bulletin , September 1977. 

7. Ibid. 

8. City Planning Department, Census Tracts, City of San Diego and Vicinity 
(1975) and City of San Diego, Population by Race and Ethnic Origin—1975 
Special Census . 

9. See footnote 3. 

10. Ibid. 

11. Comprehensive Planning Organization of the San Diego Region, Demographic 
and Economic Forecasts for the San Diego Region , No. 7, November 1976. 

12. See footnote 3. 

13. James Gleason, Director, Environmental Quality Department, City Admin¬ 
istration Building, City of San Diego, Recorded Interview, November 1, 
1977. 

14. Councilman Hubbard, City Administration Building, Recorded Interview, 
November 1, 1977. 

15. Census Tracts and City of San Diego, Housing Inventory , Special Census, 
April 1, 1975. Approach angle and altitudes are calculated from informa¬ 
tion received from Bud McDonald, Airport Manager, in a Telecon November 
23, 1977, and are based on the fact that 90 percent of the 110 daily ar¬ 
rivals are from an easterly direction and approach procedures whereby the 


88 

















aircraft is at an altitude of 2200 feet 7 miles from the runway, descending 
at a 45 degree angle. 

16. San Diego County Comprehensive Planning Organization, Attitude Survey , 
Citizen Attitudes of Planning Issues, July 1971. 

17. Ibid. 

18. Virginia Taylor, The Noise Abatement Control Board, County Operations 
Building, Recorded Interview, October 31, 1977, 10:30 a.m. 

19. Ibid. 

20. Ibid. 

21. City of San Diego, Engineering Department, Conference Notes, San Diego 
Ordinance Meeting , Joint Staff Noise Task Force, May 30, 1973. 

22. See footnote 18. 

23. Ibid. 

24. Schroeder, Stanley C., and Shipman, Thomas E. Citizen Opinions on Public 
Issues in San Diego . Copley International Corporation, LaJolla, Californ¬ 
ia, June 1975. 

25. See footnote 14. 

26. Ibid. 

27. See footnote 13. 

28. James E. Dukes, Administrator, Noise Abatement and Control, Building In¬ 
spection Department, City of San Diego, Recorded Interview, October 31, 
1977, 8:30 a.m. 

29. Ibid. 

30. See footnote 18. 

31. See footnote 14. 

32. Ibid. 

33. Ibid. 

34. Ibid. 

35. See footnote 13. 

36. John Reese, Chief, Civil Division, City Attorney's Office, City Administra¬ 
tion Building, City of San Diego, Recorded Interview, November 1, 1977. 

37. See footnote 28. 

38. Ibid. 

39. Ibid. 

40. James Dukes, Administrator, Building Inspection Department, Noise Abate¬ 
ment and Control, City of San Diego, Recorded Interview, November 2, 1977, 
and Richard Procunier, Noise Representative, EPA Region IX, City of San 
Francisco, Recorded Hearing, November 3, 1977. 

41. See footnote 28. 

42. Ibid and see footnote 40. 

43. Ibid. 


89 







44. See Appendix H, 

45. See footnote 28. 

46. Ibid. 

47. Ibid. 

48. Ibid and see footnote 13. 

49. See footnote 40. 

50. Ibid. 

51. See footnote 28 and Appendix N. 

52. Donald Davis, Inspector, San Diego Police Department, Administrative Sec¬ 
tion of San Diego, Recorded Interview, October 31, 1977. 

53. Ibid. 

54. Ibid. 

55. Ibid. 

56. Ibid. 

57. Ibid. 

58. See footnote 40. 

59. San Diego Building Inspection Department, Noise Abatement and Control 
Newsletter , Administrator's Report, Volume III, James E. Duke, April 1977. 

60. San Diego Building Inspection Department, Noise Abatement and Control 
Newsletter , Administrator's Report, Volume III, James E. Dukes, December 
1976. 

61. Ibid and San Diego Building Inspection Department, Noise Abatement and 
Control Newsletter , Volume III, Administrator's Report, James E. Dukes, 
February and March 1977. 

62. Noise Abatement and Control Administration, City of San Diego, Noise 
Complaint Record No. 5143, Case History, Center City Hospital , August 27, 
1975. 

63. Noise Abatement and Control Administration, City of San Diego, Noise 
Complaint Record, Case History, Barking Dog at 322 Birdrock Avenue (La 

Jolla), San Diego , February 2, 1977. 

64. Noise Abatement and Control Administration, City of San Diego, Noise 
Complaint Record, Bob Donaldson, "Rainwash Company ", September 1, 1976. 

65. See footnote 40. 

66. California Administration Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Cal- 
ifornia Noise Insulation Standards , February 22, 1974. 

67. The following represents sources for the text as well as Exhibits 25, 26, 
and 27. See Reference 36, 40, and 28 and San Diego Building Inspection 
Department, Noise Abatement and Control Newsletter , Volume III, Administra¬ 
tor's Report, James E. Dukes, January 1977. 

68. Ibid. 

69. Ibid. 


90 

















70. Ibid. 

71. Ibid. 

72. Ibid. 


91 





APPENDIX A 


Persons Interviewed and Other Sources 
of Information for the San Diego Case Study 


• Persons Interviewed 


October 31, 1977 

8:30 a. m. James E. Dukes, Administrator 

Noise Abatement and Control 
Building Inspection Department 
City of San Diego 
1222 First Avenue 
San Diego, California 92101 
(714) 236-5735 

The interview with Mr. Dukes was conducted to obtain an overview 
of the present noise abatement and control program. His office is primarily 
involved in the development of noise regulations or standards, land-use planning 
policies, and enforcement of the noise abatement and control program. 

He views his office as a research and development center for controlling noise. 

His office seeks to solve problems through research rather than through 
stringent enforcement. 

10:30 a.m. Virginia Taylor, The Noise Abatement Control Board 

Members of an earlier Noise Task Force and the Public at large. (For 
list of members, please see Attachment B and Attachment C). 

County Operations Building 
1600 Pacific Coast Highway 
San Diego, California 92101 
(714) 281-2428 

The purpose of this meeting was to interview some of the initial persons involved in 
the early stages of the noise abatement program. The Mayor's Noise Task Force 
was established to assess the noise problem. This task force was structured to have 
a wide cross section of professional and non-professional backgrounds. This group 
offered three major elements which were thought to have gained them success in their 
noise abatement program: (1) a strong, active, dedicated small group with diversified 
backgrounds (i.e., medical doctors, acousticians, lawyers, businessmen, etc.) to 
spearhead an effort, (2) public awareness, and (3) enforceable legislation. 

2:40 p.m. Donald Davis, Inspector 

San Diego Police Department 
Administrative Section 
801 West Market Street 
San Diego, California 92101 
(704) 236-6534 

Mr. Davis in this interview presented his experience concerning the extent of police 
involvement in the enforcement of the noise abatement program. Mr. Davis's function 
in the noise abatement program is to serve as a liaison between his office and the 
noise abatement and control office. The police enforcement efforts are mainly in 
the areas of their ongoing operational duties as related to complaints received for loud 
parties or other similar loud disturbances. The Noise Abatement and Control Office 
is usually involved in matters that relate to complaints concerning construction noise 
or other similar disturbances. However, both the police department and the Noise 
Abatement and Control Office work together when noise control and abatement situations 
present themselves, such as monitoring continuously noisy offenders to aid the police 
department with quantitative backup data. 


A-2 



November 1, 1977 

9:00 a. m. James Gleason, Director 

Environmental Quality Department 
City Administration Building 
202 C Street 

San Diego, California 92101 
(714) 236-5775 

Our interview with Mr. James Gleason was designed to obtain information on his 
involvement with the initial task force. Mr. Gleason felt the diversity of backgrounds 
on the task force was an important factor that led to the implementation of a successful 
noise abatement program in San Diego. lie also felt the philosophy of the program to 
eliminate noise problems by compliance rather than stringent enforcement was 
another important plus for the program. 

10:00 a.m. Councilman Hubbard 

City Administration Building 
202 C Street 

San Diego, California 92101 
(714) 236-GG33 

Councilman Hubbard was involved in the initial task force for noise abatement and 
control. This interview was structured to obtain information on Councilman Hubbard's 
involvement on the task force as a representative for the construction industry in 
San Diego. Councilman Hubbard provided valuable input to the task force on 
terminology, limitations of equipment, and other appropriate explanations as related 
to the construction industry. This type of input was considered useful for the task 
force in establishing its noise standards. 


1:00 p. m. Carol Sue Tanner, M. E., Acoustical Engineer 

San Diego Acoustics 
One Eleven Elm Street 
San Diego, California 92101 
(714) 231-8986 

Ms. Tanner was a member on the initial task force and now owns and operates a 
noise related consulting firm (San Diego Acoustics). The interview with her was 
designed to obtain her experiences with the initial task force. Ms. Tanner 
explained how the initial effort considered the health aspects of noise abatement. 

As the efforts of the task force progressed, the program took on a more technical structure. 

3:00 p.m. John Reese, Chief 

Civil Division 
City Attorney's Office 
City Administration Building 
202 C Street 

San Diego, California 92101 
(714) 236-6220 

Mr. Reese was interviewed to obtain insight on how the City Attorney's Office is 
utilized in the noise abatement and control program. Mr. Reese is primarily 
involved in legal matters that the noise abatement program may encounter and when 
a noise case goes to court, he serves as the prosecutor. Mr. Reese provided insight into 
the legal aspects of the noise abatement and control program. 


A-3 


November 2, 1977 

9:00 a.m. James Dukes, Administrator 

Building Inspection Department 
Noise Abatement and Control 
1222 First Avenue 
San Diego, California 92101 
(714) 236-5735 

This interview session served as a continuation of the initial interview with Mr. Dukes 
on October 31, 1977. Mr. Dukes provided us in this session with an overview of thp 
noise abatement program from an administrative level- At the same time, he provided 
useful details on the operational aspects of the program. 

1:30 p.m. George W. Orman 

Senior Planner 
City Planning Department 
City Administration Building 
202 C Street 

San Diego, California 92101 
(714) 236-6480 

The interview with Mr. Orman was structured to obtain socioeconomic and community 
planning information for the San Diego area. 

2:30 p.m. Phillip Binks, Photographer 

Department of Public Information 
City Administration Building 
202 C Street 

San Diego, California 92101 
(714) 236-6019 

Mr. Bink's Office was visited to obtain graphics and photographs of the San Diego 
area. 

November 3, 1977 

8:30 a. m. Researched information contained in the Noise Abatement and Control 

Office files. 

The Noise Abatement and Control Program files were researched to obtain depth 
knowledge about the types of cases the office handles and their operating procedures. 

10:00 a.m. Noise Abatement and Control Hearing 

A Noise Abatement and Control Hearing was attended to obtain a working knowledge on the 
procedures and methods of its operations. 

1:30 p.m. Richard Procunier 

Noise Representative 

EPA Region IX 

100 California Street 

San Francisco, California 94111 

(415) 556-4606 


James E. Dukes, Administrator 
Building Inspection Department 
Noise Abatement and Control 
1222 First Avenue 
San Diego, California 92101 
(714) 230-5735 

This session was utilized to exchange ideas on the noise abatement and control program. 
It also served as a means for EPA noise representatives and San Diego noise personnel. 

to discuss the noise problem and experience each has had. This provided a useful forum 
for the exchange of ideas and experiences related to the noise problem. 


Persons Contacted by Telephone or Information obtained from, please see Attachment A. 


Attachment A 


Other Persons Providing Information 

Bud McDonald 

Airport Manager 

San Diego International Airport 

San Diego, California 92101 

(714) 291-3900 

John Wilbur 
Chief Engineer 
Unified Port District 
3165 Pacific Highway 
San Diego, California 92112 
(714) 291-3900 

Stewart Swett 
Chief of Criminal Division 
City Attorney's Office 
202 C Street 

San Diego, California 92101 
(714) 236-6220 

Michael Meedham 

Assistant Environmental Management Coordinator 
San Diego Unified Port District 
3165 Pacific Highway 
Room 750 

San Diego, California 92112 
(714) 291-3900 

Thomas Frile, Chief 

Environmental Management Coordinator 

San Diego Unified Port District 

3165 Pacific Highway 

San Diego, California 92112 

(714) 291-3900 

Robert Gales, Ph.D. 

Acoustical Society (former President) 

Naval Underseas Research and Development Center 
San Diego, California 92J,12 
(714) 225-6309 

George W. Curtis, Inspector 
Building Inspection Department 
1222 First Avenue 
San Diego, California 9210jl 
(714) 236-6120 


Marnie Cox 
Economic Research 
Chamber of Commerce 
Center City Building 
233 A Street 
San Diego, California 
(714) 232-0124 

San Diego Convention & Visitor Center 
Washington, D. C. 

(202) 467-5958 

George Story, Director 
Citizens Assistance & Information 
City Administration Building 
202 C Street 

San Diego, California 92101 
(714) 23G-C019 

Randolph Hulbert 

County of San Diego 

Office of Environmental Management 

1600 Pacific Highway 

San Diego, California 92101 

(714) 236-4717 

Raymond V. Sacco, Supervisor 
Noise Control 
County of San Diego 
Department of Public Health 
1600 Pacific Highway 
San Diego, California 92101 
(714) 236-4717 

John Wilbert 

San Diego Unified Port District 
3165 Pacific Highway 
San Diego, California 92112 
(714) 291-3900 

William Bamburger 

Comprehensive Planning Organization of the San Diego Region 
Suite 524 

Security Pacific Plaza 
1200 Third Avenue 
San Diego, California 92101 
(714) 233-5211 

W. Malcolm Barksdale 
Senior Planner/Urban Design 

Comprehensive Planning Organization of the San Diego Region 
Suite 524 

Security Pacific Plaza 
1200 Third Avenue 
San Diego, California 92101 
(714) 233-5211 


Leslie Fox 

Economic Development Corporation 
1200 Third Avenue 
Suite 416 

San Diego, California 92101 
(714) 234-8484 


A-8 


CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY 
NOISE CONTROL HEARING BOARD 


Ms. Willena Ann Beyer, Audiologist 
Mr. Robert Gales, Acoustical Physicist, 

Naval Ocean Systems Center 
John A. Henderson, M. D., Vice Chairman & 
Otologist 

Donald F. Krebs, Ph. D., San Diego Speech & 
Hearing Center, Audiologist 
Mr. James Leland, Science related to Acoustics 
J. Peter Schroeder, D. V.M., Noise Research 
Ms. Ardetta Steiner, Citizen activist 
Ms. Virginia W. Taylor, Research Analyst, Chair 
Peter R. Frank, Ph.D., Psychologist 


Lemon Grove 

San Diego 

San Diego 

San Diego 
Coronado 
Solana Beach 
Point Loma 
San Diego 
Scripps Ranch 


PAST MEMBERS OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY 
NOISE CONTROL HEARING BOARD 

Ms. Carole Sue Tanner, M. E., Acoustical Engineer 
Mr. Frank Asaro, Attorney & previous Chair 
Capt. Robert Cantrell, M.D., Physician 

Medical School Chairman of Physical Medicine 
University of Virginia 
Charlottesville, Virginia 

Mrs. Esther Sims, Citizen activist Poway 


San Diego 
San Diego 


Staff for the Board include Edna Laine, County Clerk's office, Ray Sacco 
and John Melbourne of the County Health Department under Dr. Philip. 

































APPENDIX B 


Noise Task Force Members 


NOISE TASK FORCE MEMBERS 


Virginia Taylor, Chairwoman 
(Research Analyst) 

2520 San Marcos Avenue 
San Diego, CA 92104 
281-2428 

Benny Chien, M. D. 

(Law Student) (USD) 

415-1/2 Gravilla 
La Jolla, CA 92037 
459-9175 

Robert Gales, Ph.D. 

Naval Underseas Research & 
Development Center 
San Diego, CA 92132 
225-7255 

Phillip L. Gausewitz, M. D. 
Pathology Laboratory 
Scripps Memorial Hospital 
9888 Genese 
La Jolla, CA 92037 
453-3400 

William Goldie 
(Medical Student, UCSD) 

Office of Student Affairs 
USCD School of Medicine 
La Jolla, CA 92037 
453-2000, Ext. 1926; 454-4708 (res.) 

Francisca Haugh 
IREM 

1600 Pacific Highway 
San Diego, CA 92101 
236-2011 

Owen Jensen 

San Diego Speech & Hearing 
Center for Occupational Noises 
8001 Frost Street 
San Diego, CA 92123 

Ray Madson 
1335 Orange Avenue 
Coronado, CA 92118 
435-6274/ 435-5857 (res.) 


John Phelan 

Environmental Law Society of San Diego 

P. O. Box 99154 

San Diego, CA 92109 

295-0152 

Lucy Pryde 

(Environmental Chemist) 

5377 Redding Road 
San Diego, CA 92115 
583-8966 

Tom Saldin 

Environmental Law Society of San Diego 

704 Sunset Court 

San Diego, CA 92109 

295-0152 

Dr. Robert E. Sandlin, Ph.D. 

San Diego Speech & Hearing Center 
8001 Frost Street 
San Diego, CA 92123 
277-1482 

Maurice Schiff, M.D. 

7255 Girard Avenue 
La Jolla, CA 92037 
453-1321 

O. B. "Mike" Sholders 
(Civil Engineer) 

Sholders, Steen & Associates 
3344 Industrial Court 
San Diego, CA 92121 
453-1321 

Walter D. Sorochan, Ph.D. 

Health & Safety Education 
San Diego State College 
San Diego, CA 92115 
286-6457; 488-6703 

Anthony M. Summers 
Deputy Attorney General 
Office of the Attorney General 
Department of Justice 
1350 Front Street 
San Diego, CA 92101 
236-7351, Ext. 7590 


B-2 


NOISE TASK FORCE MEMBERS 
(Continued) 


Carol Tanner 
(Acoustical Engineer) 
Hydrospace Research Corp. 
1360 Rosecrans Street 
San Diego, CA 92106 

224- 3235 

Robert W. Young, Ph.D. 
Naval Underseas Research & 
Development Center 
San Diego, CA 92132 

225- 6681 


Maureen Smith 

(San Diego County War Against 
Litter Committee) 

3380 Moraga Court 
San Diego, CA 92117 
272-7033 


B-3 






































APPENDIX C 


Minutes and Agendas of the Noise Task Force 
January 6, 1972 
February 25, 1972 
April 21, 1972 
August 9, 1972 


C-l 


COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING ASSOCIATION 
OF SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES 

NOISE TASK FORCE MEETING 

Thursday, January 6, 1972 


PRESENT 

Virginia Taylor, Chairwoman 
Phillips L. Gausewitz, M.D. 
William Goldie 
Lucy Pryde 
Maurice Schiff, M.D. 

Walter D. Sorochan, Ph.D. 
Anthony M. Summers 
Carol Tanner 
Robert W. Young, Ph.D. 

STAFF 

Daniel Gorfain 


ABSENT 

Benny Chien, M.D. (Excused) 
O.B. Sholders 

RESOURCE 

Francesca Haugh, San Diego 
County Environmental 
Development Agency 

GUEST 

Arnold Klaus, Chairman, 
CHPA San Diego County 
Environmental Health 
Committee 


INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

Following self introductions by each of the Task Force members and others present, 
Mr. Gorfain briefly discussed the background of the Comprehensive Health Planning 
Association and the role of the Task Force with respect to the Association. 

TASK FORCE SCOPE AND STRATEGY 

Following extensive discussion, the Task Force agreed that it could not deal with 
the entire spectrum of the noise problem. It therefore chose to "isolate" some of 
the more tangible components of it as they pertain to San Diego and recommend 
solutions to them. 

Specific areas the Task Force would like to consider are: 

1. Establishing a speakers' bureau on noise in the CHPA; 

2. Recommending a model noise ordinance for the cities and County of 
San Diego; 


C-2 









•fr<is$ Task Force Meeting 
January 6, 1972 
Page 2 

3. Recommending noise related policies to be included in the upcoming 
revision of the San Diego City General Plan; 

4. Incorporating uniformly adequate statements of existing and projected 
noJ.se problems in new subdivisions into the State Subdivision Public 
Reports; 

5. Recommending necessary measures for private, commercial and military 
aircraft noise abatement; 

6. Recommending necessary steps for abatement of noise associated with 
municipal services in residential areas, particularly garbage col¬ 
lection and street cleaning; 

7. Investigating outside financial support for Task Force activities 
from private and public local, state and national sources. 

The Task Force also expressed soma interest in looking at vehicular noise, pro¬ 
duct noise and occupational noise. 

In dealing with each of the above areas, the Task Force agreed to the following 
steps, drawing in as much as possible on existing data, and task force and 
local expertise: 

1. Define the nature of the problem; 

2. Define the problem in relation to San Diego; 

3. Describe the health impact of the problem; 

4. Identify responsible control agencies; 

5. Analyze existing control laws (Federal, State and local) and 
identify strengths, weaknesses and gaps; 


C-3 


Noise Task Force Meeting 
January 6, 1972 
Page 3 

6. Develop alternative control strategies; 

7. Identify strategies for action, including legal-legislative, voluntary 
compliance and community organization and education. 

In addition to looking at the above areas, the Task Force agreed about the need 
to an overview statement of: 

1. The noise problem in general 

2. The health impact of noise 

3. The San Diego noise problem and its components in order of their 
impact on health 

4. A general strategy for noise abatement 

STAFF ACTIVITIES 

1, In accordance with the Task Force's desire to establish a speakers bureau, 
and the information about the program on Education for Environmental 
Awareness co-sponsored by the Sierra Club and the Center for Environmental 
Education on February 3-6, 1972, staff arranged to have Mr. Robert Gales 
of the Naval Underseas Research and Development Center to give a workshop 
on noise. 

2. In pursuing a working relationship with the Integrated Regional Environ¬ 
mental Management Project of San Diego County, staff is negotiating with 
EDA at the latter's suggestion to have this Task Force act in an advisory 
capacity to IREM on noise. 

3 * The San Diego War Against Litter Committee has requested the appointment of 

Mrs. Maureen Smith to the Task Force. After checking with Mrs. Taylor and 

the CHPA Executive Director, Mrs. Smith has been added as a new Task Force 

member. 


C-4 



SAN DIEGO COUNTY 
NOISE TASK FORCE 
of the 

COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING ASSOCIATION 

MINUTES 

******* 

February 25, 1972 


PRESENT 

Virginia Taylor, Chairwoman 
Benny Chien, M.D. 

Robert Gales 

Phillips L. Gausewitz, M.D. 
William Goldie 
Lucy Pryde 

Maurice Schiff, M.D. 
Maureen Smith 
Walter D. Sorochan, Ph.D. 
Carol Tanner 

STAFF 

Daniel Gorfain 


ABSENT 

0. B. "Mike" Sholders 
Anthony M. Summers 
Robert W. Young, Ph.D. 

RESOURCE 

Francesca Haugh, S.D. County 

Environmental Development Agency 
Gordon Piper, S.D. City Dept, of 
Community Development 

GUEST 

Lt, Coleman, March Air Force 
Base, Riverside 


Following preliminary discussion, the Task Force decided to pursue the follow¬ 
ing areas with assigned responsibilities: 

1. Establishing a Speakers Bureau on Noise (Pryde, Gales, Schiff): 

The Task Force expressed an interest in community education and 
information at the school and adult level. It proposed that an 
announcement of speakers availability be sent out. Task Force 
members will send staff a list of groups who might be contacted. 

2. Countywide Noise Ordinance (Chien, Summers, Young, Tanner, Haugh, Piper): 

It was agreed to develop a cooperative relationship with the City 
of San Diego through the Department of Community Development on 
recommending a noise ordinance which could then be promoted County¬ 
wide. It was agreed that the most critical part of developing such 
an ordinance is making it relevant and enforceable. 

A request for liaison with the City was sent to George Simpson, 
Director of the Department of Community Development. 


C-5 









Noise Task Force 
February 25, 1972 
Page 2 


3. Recommended Noise Related Policies to be Included in the Revision of 
the City of San Diego General Plan (Tanner, Haugh): 

Action on this is to be delayed until Mrs. Haugh's paper is done 
and more background information is assembled by the Task Force.- 

4. Adequate Statement of Existing and Projected Noise Problems in New 
Subdivision Public Reports (Summers, Staff): 

The Task Force will pursue the incorporation of adequate state¬ 
ments into all Subdivision Public Reports as a matter of policy 
by the State Department of Real Estate. Extent of noise may be 
calculated according to FHA's Noise Assessment Guidelines. 

The California Highway Patrol will also be consulted on vehicular 
noise levels and abatement efforts. 

Staff will obtain a copy of the Environmental Guidelines issued by 
San Diego Federal Savings. 

5. Recommending Measures for Private, Commercial and Military Aircraft 
Noise Abatement (Gausewitz): 

Background information will be gathered about major airfied oper¬ 
ations - Lindberg, Miramar, North Island to start - for the purpose 
of learning of what each is doing or might do to reduce community 
noise problems. The Airports and Land Use Commission (CPO, Lee 
Hultgren) will also be contacted to learn of what the Commission 
can do to abate the aircraft noise problem. 

6. Abatement of Noise Associated with Municipal Services (Smith): 

This task aims at identifying the noise problem associated with 
providing municipal services in residential areas, particularly 
garbage, collection and street cleaning, and recommending ways of 
abating it. Steps toward abatement may include revising working 
schedules, converting to quieter heavy equipment and requiring 
quiet garbage storage receptacles. Background information per¬ 
taining to the feasibility of these and other ways of noise abate¬ 
ment need to be collected. 

7. Federal Noise Legislation (Taylor): 

The Task Force will be kept up to date on Federal Noise Legislation 
through Senator Alan Cranston's and Representative Lionel Van Deerlin's 
offices. 


C-6 


Noise Task Force 
February 25, 1972 
Page 3 


8. Noise Impact on Children (Scliiff, Coldie, Gales): 

A paper will be drafted on the impact of noise on children. This 
includes both auditory and non-auditory noise. The paper will 
emphasize both physiological and psychological impact and be pre¬ 
pared in lay language so that it might be used for community 
information and education activities. 

9, San Diego Noise Impact Map (Gales, Tanner, Sorochan & Students): 

The Task Force will investigate the feasibility of constructing a 
noise impact map for San Diego County and either proceed to start 
developing sucli a map or outline what is needed and who might do 
itj c,g., CPO, 

Staff will be available to assist Task Force members to establish contacts and 
gather information pertaining to their tasks, including clerical help. 

The Task Force will meet again at the end of March, Friday seems to be a 
good day. Task Force members will be contacted shortly about the next meeting. 


C-7 


•-*> ct- 


NOISE TASK FORCS MEETING - CHPA - February 25, 1972 - IQ AM 


Introductions by individual members; list of Resource and members 
by Dan Gorfain. (name tags?) 

Virginia: 

1. Specific areas established at meeting 1/6/72 

a. Speakers Eureau 

Lucy Pryde and Bob Gale on Env. Ed. mtg. 2/3 

b. Levels of speakers & 2/5-6 

Elementary 
Jr. High 
High School 

College and University 
Post-graduate 
Statewide coalition 

c. Lucy Pryde, Dr. Schiff and Dr. Young 

are on educational committee.. Other 
resources? 

d. Committee and VT testimony to MiraMesa Hrng 2/9 

2. Model noise ordinance 

Need expressed in SD Attitude Survey 9/70 of 
about 4,000 residents of SD County 
64.75a responded "yes" to "Now thinking of noise 
another pollution, that is loud or prolonged noises, do 

inition! you feel threre is any type of neiso pollution 

either in your own neighborhood or area or in any 
other part of SD County, or not? 

63/j felt noise pollution in SD County as a whole 
is a "medium or large problem" - major causes 
by citizens were listed as combination trucks, 
motorcycles, cars, and airplanes had 6If; vote. 

Discussion of Model Noise Ordinance material 
Asic Tony Sommers on how to proceed - legal. 

3. Recommending noise related policies to be Included in 

the upcoming revision of the SD City General Plan. 

a. Specific priority areas: 

MiraMesa 

University City area 
5 points (adjacent to freeway) 

Sr. Citizen high rises (acoustical?) 

b. Francesca Haugh - General Flan w/Carol Tanner 


4. State Subdivision Public Reports - 

5. Private, commercial and military aircraft - 

6. Municipal services - new WALCO representative, , 

--- 

7. Outside financial support - staff? 


C-8 





NOISE TASK FORCE MEETING 2/25/72 


2. vt 


8. Discussion of material submitted by Task Force Members. 

Establish bibliography of material, and specifics 
of San Diego noise pollution. 

compilation by? 

9. How do we want to proceed on our goals: 

a. define the nature of the problem 

b. define the problem in relation to SD - Dr. Young? 

l) priorities in order of impact on health. 

c. describe the health impact of the problem 

d. identify responsible control agencies 

e. analyze existing control laws (Federal, State and local) 

Strengths: 

Weaknesses: 

10. Ask Carol Tanner to speak at CHP Env. ECommittee meeting 3/2/72 

11. Specific tasks clear to everyone? 


C-9 


NOISE TASK FORCE 
MINUTES 


COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING ASSOCIATION 
OF IMPERIAL, RIVERSIDE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES 


NOISE TASK FORCE 


Task Force Meeting 
Friday, April 21, 1972 

9:30 a.m. to T2:00 TToon 

CHPA Downstairs Conference Room 


AGENDA 

■kidck-kirfrkirk-K 

1. Review of progress on work assignments. 

2. Position statement on noise policies to be included in the current 
' revision of the San Diego City General Plan. 

3. Review of CPO’s proposed Noise Goals and Objectives for 
San Diego County. (Enclosure 1) 

4. -■ Date of next meeting. 


NOTE; Please complete and return the enclosed postcard by Thursday, 
April 20, 1972. 


NOISE TASK FORCE 
OP THE 

COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING ASSOCIATION 
OF IMPERIAL, RIVERSIDE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES 

August 9, 1972 


Next Meeting 
Friday, August 25, 1972 
9:30 a.m. - 12:00 
CHPA 

3211 Jefferson Street 

San Diego, California 92124 


AGENDA 
* *★★★★*★★■*-* 

1. Approval of minutes of July 21, 1972 

Enclosure 1: Legislative Bills AB 889, SB 1247, SB 1248, SB 1249, AB-2376. 

2. Special Slide Presentation on the San Diego Plan for Air Transportation will 
be given and will focus on airport noise and Navigation planning. It will be 
related to noise Impact around the airports and state requirements... 

Guest Speaker:' Lee Hultgren, 

Senior Planner 
County of San Diego 

Enclosure 2: SANPAT - Interim Report 2 SANPAT Manager 

3. Committee Reports 

a. Noise Abatement.Phillips L. Gausowitz 

"Aircraft Noise at Coronado" Maurice Schiff 

b. San Diego Noise Impact Map.Robert Gales, Carol 

Enclosure 3: "Report on CSUSD Student Projects on Tanner, Walter Sorochan 

Noise Pollution" by Walter Sorochan, 

Gall Spezer, Betsy Ferres, Lorraine 
Martinez, Janice Newberry, and Jacque 
Williams. 

c» State and Federal Legislation.Virginia Taylor 

Anthony Summers 

Enclosure 4: "Listing of members of California State Legislature" 

d. Countywide Noise Ordinance . .Benny Chin, Anthony 

Summers, Robert Young, 
Carol Tanner, Francesca 

Enclosure 5: "New York City Urban Haugh, Gordon Piper, 

Noise Survey Method" Bill Waters (staff) 

e; Noise Policies related to General Plan.Francesca Haugh, 

Carol Tanner 

f. Speakers Bureau on Noise ..Lucy Pryde , Robert Gales, 

Maurice Schiff, Eugene 
Horton (staff) 

4. New Business 

a. "Survival School" report.Virginia Taylor, 

Anthony Summers 

b. News Media Information.Virginia Taylor, (staff) 

5. Adjournment 


C-ll 










EQ/NR Subcommittee 
2/3/72 


NOISE 

PROPOSED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 
SAN DIEGO COUNTY 


GOAL QUIET FOR THE REGION. Reduce the level of noise so that it causes 
no human stress or health damage, and does not interfere with any 
human activities such as sleep, work, play or thought. 

OBJECTIVES 


A. Aircraft 

1. Lindbergh Field and vicinity. 

a. Alter frequency of operation and type of aircraft in order 
to meet - state aircraft noise standards. 

b. Institute a 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. curfew for jet flights 

at Lindbergh'Field to eliminate airplane noise during sleeping 
hours- 

c. Institute either a like curfew or noise muffling restrictions 
on engine testing at aircraft plants near Lindbergh Field. 

2. Miramar Naval Air Station and other Military Air Facilities 

a. Rezone area within unacceptable noise zones for commercial 
and industrial development, allowing no new residences in 
these areas. 

b. Conduct all engine testing in indoor facilities which 
adequately muffle noise. 

c. Keep aircraft operations at a minimum by using airfields in 
unpopulated areas as much as possible, e.g. San Clemente 
Island. 

d. For the long-term, alter aircraft and training operations to 
be eompa^iWe with the urban environment surrounding Miramar. 

B. Ground Vehicle Noise 

1. Establish full-time vehicle noise enforcement teams within the 

California Highway Patrol for San Diego County. 

2. Require motorcycles and off-road vehicles to be as quiet as 

automobiles. 

3. Separate off-road vehicles from recreational activities that require 

quiet for enjoyment, such as hiking, nature study, sun bathing, etc. 


C-12 






- 2 - 


C. Urban Development and Planning 

1. Include a noise element in the general plan for the region and 
each jurisdiction, which would specify maximum noise limits 
compatible with various land uses. 

2. Establish noise control requirements in the building codes and 
zoning ordinances of San Diego County and all cities. 


C-13 


NOISE TASK FOKCE 
OF THE 

COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING ASSOCIATION 
OF IMPERIAL, RIVERSIDE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES 

August 9, 1972 


SUMMARY 


INFORMATION ITEMS : 

1. A review of the noise pollution reports by San Diego State University 
students was given by Dr. Walter Sorochan. 

2. Legislative review report was presented by Anthony Summers. The following 
legislative bills are still being considered: (1) AB 889, and (2) AB 1248. 

'3. A progress report of air noise at Coronado and North Island was given by 
Rae Madson and Gregg Marshall. 


C-14 




NOISR TASK FORCK 
OF THE 

COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING ASSOCIATION 
OF IMPERIAL, RIVERSIDE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES 

August 9, 1972 


MINUTES 

***■*■ A;******** 

MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT 


Rnc Madson 
Walter Sorocban 
Maureen Smith 
Tony Summers 
Dave Potler 
F i t'/.hugh Lee 
Robert E. Sandlin 
Jacque Williams 
B. A. Longley-Cook 
M. T. Longley-Cook 

CALL TO ORDER 


G. Marshall 
W. K. Kirby 
0. E. Jensen 
Darryl Pe r1in 
Reid Carroll 
R. S. Gales 
Maurice Schiff 
Phil Gausewitz 
Carole S. Tanner 


Lucy Pryde 
0. R. Sholders 
Gordon Piper 
Francesca Haugh 


The July 21 meeting was brought to order at 9:45 a.m. i n 

the unavoidable absence of Chairwoman, Virginia Taylor, Carol Tinner was 

elected tc the Chair. 


APPROVAL OF MINUTES 


The minutes ol the April 21 meeting were approved as read. 
COMMITTEE REPORTS 


Dr. Sorochan gave a review of L lie noise pollution reporLs undertaken by his 
Environmental Health students at San Diego State University, and in particular 
covered two studies: 


■ ■ - ■■ — ★ * * - ■ ■ 

PLEASE NOTE: The next meeting of the Noise Task Force is scheduled for • 

Friday, August 25, 1972, at 9:30 a.m. in the C11PA Conference Room. Please 
return the enclosed postcard no later than Thursday, August 24, 1972. 

. - - - * * * —————————————— 


C-15 














Noise Task Force 
August 9, 1972 
Page 2 

1. Gathering of noise contour maps of City & County airports-done in conjunction 
with Carol Tanner. 

It was found that Miramar & Lindberg fields only had maps. Data and information 
was withheld from the student, particularly when they tried to calculate their 
own contours. Finally a survey of residents around Montgomery field • n^r- 

tnken. The results were mat temporary loud construction work"was more aggra¬ 
vating than recurring airplane noise of short duration. Older people were will¬ 
ing to put up with noise. There were few complaints. Summary - people adapt 
to noise. One confliet with noise pollution is that it varies with the individual 
and the situation. The fact of noise does make a difference how people view it. 

?. Nosie level evaluation. 

Existing navy questionaire used: 102 people interviewed. Studies undertaken 
at Mission Valley Shopping Cenicjr, S. 0. State Fast Cafeteria, and downt own. 
Results: 80-90 dlis most irritating, but varies with individual and circumstance. 

Noise was a distraction when people were working, but at play it could be over¬ 
looked. However, the amount was the criterion. Summary - people adapt. 

The chief problem the students encountered was they were unable to pick up a 
noise meter invitediately. 

Dr. Sorochan summarized that the field work done by the students was excellent 
in sensitizing them to environmental noise. He felt, however, that before he 
asked for their assistance again, more structured projects should be worked out 
by the Task Force. 

Discussion: How could the Task Force obtain a noise meter for tne use ot members 
.and helpers. No conclusion was reached - lack of finances being the main reason. 

Anthony Sumners gave Legislative Review of Aircraft & other noise . 

Assembly Bill 889 , copy on file, was outlined. Extremely important to Task Force 
as it would necessiatc every Environmental Impact Statement to cover noise in 
detail. Referred to assembly committee on governmental organization. 

Senate Bil l_1J47, cove r ing co-ordination of State activities, research to 

determine psychological and physiological noise, and dissemination of information 
to the public was unfortunately killed by Finance Committee. However, it is 
hoped that a version will become part of amended Assembly Bill 2376 (Z'berg). 
S enate Bill 1248 , control of noise Department of Public Health. It had second 
reading and will have a third reading at a later date. It related to "Noise 
standards for manufactured material other than motor vehicles and aircrafts." 
Se nate Bill 1249 , noise insulation for dwellings. A minimum noise insulation 
standard. It is concerned with multiple dwellings and should also include single 
family dwellings. Discussion ensued on how such a standard could be enforced. 

Mr. Gales asked if any actual noise numbers had been quoted and it appears not. 

It was defeated but was granted reconsideration. 

AB 2376 is in assembly, defeated on third reading but was granted reconsideration. 

Tony Summers emphasized that citizens must band together and complain, or 
airports and such will take no action. Carol Tanner stated that it was the 
responsibility of local agencies to report if an airport is a noise problem, 
and if an airport has a problem it has to monitor 


C-16 










Noise Task Force 
August 9, 1972 
Page 3 


Dr. Sorochan requested what the Task Force could do to assist. Tony Summers 
replied that support of the Hills was important. A list of Senators and 
Assemblymen was forth coming and would be distributed to members. 

Aircraft Report from Coronado 

Ray Madson presented Progress Report of Air Noise in Coronado Map of North 
Island Air Traffic Pattern. Copies on file. So far CANACT have not made 
any progress with the Navy. The use of San Clemente, which would reduce the 
noise problem in the area, is from Monday through Friday only, and still the 
Pi anes continue Touch & Goes (standard Navy practice is two runs as on an 
aircarrier) sometimes up till 11:30 p.m. on Runway 36. Property damage is 
being evaluated, and Hotel Del Coronado, Historic Place, is showing signs of 
noise wear and tear and there is fear for it structurally. A Noise Abatement 
Committee has been set up and will have its first meeting Wednesday, July 26, 
at 3:30 p.m. at Coronado City Hall chambers. The Task Force was invited. 


Greg Marshall, who works for the Navy's Environmental Protection 
was then asked to give the Navy's report on what is being done, 
that efforts were being made to reduce the noise pollution, but 
that lhe group's job was to collect data only. It had no power 
only monitor. The noise' measurement procedure's set up at North 
eventually be used at all Navy Air Bases. 


Study Group, 
and he felt 
he pointed out 
to control, 
Island would 


C-17 












































































































- 






































APPENDIX D 


San Diego Ordinance Publicity 


SAN DIEGO ORDINANCE PUBLICITY 


news release from the office of 

The City of JIM BATES 

SAN DIEGO 


Contact: Haines Remmey 
236-6440 • 


EMBARGO: For release anytime after news conference scheduled 
for 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, March 27, in the 9th floor 
conference room, City Administration Building 

A sweeping revision of San Diego's noise ordinance was proposed today by 
City Councilman Jim Bates. 

Bates said the measure is designed to control and abate noise which is 
detrimental to health, by establishing acceptable limits and providing penalties 
for violations. 

"The present ordinance on the books simply is not adequate to enable 
the City of San Diego to cope with the growing problem of noise," Bates said. 

"I think the revisions will help prevent new problems while solving existing ones." 

Bates said his interest in effective noise controls was prompted by increasing 
complaints to his office from citizens. "Generally, people seem most concerned 
about the annoyance factors of noise, " Bates said. "However, studies point to 
major health problems which can result from excessive noise, and our primary 
concern is to protect loss to psychological problems." 

Bates said the ordinance would: 

1. Establish acceptable noise limits and relate these to a definable, measurable, 
standard. 

2. Define noise levels which are injurious to the health and safety of residents 
of the City of San Diego. 

3. Provide penalties for continued noise level abuse, and establish procedures 
for enforcement of provisions of the ordinance. 

4. Place time limits on construction activities, including the use of equipment. 


D-2 


5. Establish allowable noise levels for specific land uses, relating these 
levels to the zoning structure of the City of San Diego. 

6. Establish acceptable noise limits for recreation vehicles, transit buses and 
refuse compacting vehicles. 

7. Establish acceptable noise limits for both aircraft and airports, and provide 
penalties for violation of these standards. 

Bates said the major work in drafting of the ordinance for submission to the 
City Council was accomplished by members of the Noise Task Force of the 
Environmental Health Section of the Comprehensive Health Planning Association. 

He said the group, chaired by Virginia Taylor, worked more than three 
months to prepare the legislation. 

The Committee also included Maureen Smith, Robert Gales, Maurice Schiff, 
John Thelan, Robert Young, Lucy Pryde, Robert Sandlin, Walter Sorochan, 

Owen Jensen, Tony Summers, Carol Tanner, and "more volunteers than I can 
count," Bates said. 


D-3 













































































APPENDIX E 


Public Notice 


PUBLIC NOTICE 


NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL VARIANCE HEARING 


A written application for a Noise Variance and a plan for abatement has been received 
by the City Noise Abatement and Control Office on January 31* 1978, to continue 
cement pipe manufacturing at Ameron Pipe Division, located at Mission Valley 
Industrial Park, Unit *t, Lots. 10, 11, and 12; Mission Gardens Annex, Lot 2; and 
Record of Survey 5837- 

The Noise Abatement and Control Administrator will consider this application in 
light of the plan for abatement at the Public Hearing on March 29, 1978, at 
12:15 p.m., in the City Council Chamber, 12th Floor, City Administration Buildinc 
Community Concourse, San Diego, California. 

Following the hearing, the Noise Abatement and Control Administrator can approve, 
approve with conditions, or deny the application. The Conditions establish the way 
in which the property may be used. Including such matters as acoustical attenuating 
barriers, times and durations of operation, and noise source to receiver distances. 

This notice is being sent to all owners of properties and residents within 500 
feet of any point on the Ameron property line which are in direct line of sight of 
the facility and to those persons who have expressed an interest in this matter. 

Any person may, (but is not required to) appear before the Noise Abatement and 
Control Administrator at the Public Hearing and be heard in support of or in 
opposition to the granting of the Noise Variance. 

Further information may be obtained by communicating with the Noise Abatement and 
Control Office at 236-6088. 

G. W. CURTIS 

BUILDING INSPECTION DIRECTOR 



np 


E-2 




APPENDIX F 


City of San Diego, Engineering Department, Conference Notes 
City Staff and CHPA Noise Control Task Force 

- April 11, 1973 
April 18, 1973 

- April 25, 1973 


F-l 


MEETINGS 


cryr of s/.n dif.;c .. • .• ^ . 

^cNRINE£RINS DEPAKTMtpiC * " 

. “CONFERENCE NOTES 

r. 7. 

/ / 

'MSTSUuTIONi 

DATE HIE (2) 
DIVISION FILE 

participants 

HfintHCt. Rt&UCITCO »»t 

CITY STAFF & CHPA NOISE 
TASK FORCE 

CONTROL 

TVll-73 ■ 

location /tn ricor. 

City Admin. Bldg. 

T|M| ST AMT CO 

3 p.m. 


1IM| CNOCO 

5:10p.m. 

iudcct 

Noise Control Ordinance 

'“ 00,£ To produce a viable and 
enforceable ordinance 


Mf ItNT (ORGANIZATION. TITLE) ' 

Attendees CHPA; Virginia Taylor, Lucy Pryde, Carole Tanner, Owen Jensen. 


City Staff: Ed Riccio, Coordinator; JDon Detisch, Deputy City Attorney; 
Merrill Day, Airport Director; Captain _R. M. Davis^_ Police Dept.; 

Gordon Murdoch, Building Inspection; Davt Potter. Planning, Jack Sarvela, 
Environmental'Quality; H. B. Rernmey, representing Councilman Jim Bates. 

The meeting was called to order at 3 p.ra. by Coordinator Ed Riccio. 

« 

CHP Sound Equipment . Referring to the item in the minutes of last meeting, 
Owen Jensen of the San Diego Speech and Hearing Center, further clarified 
the situation as follows: CHP actually has the use of this equipment for 
a 32-hour period once each quarter, so, although the authority is there, 
the ability is not. 


SUBJECTS DISCUSSED • suk*«A*txc . inclusc •»aa^icipant» ano concik itatcminm o* conclusions. ano/o« 

RCC OMMCN O A TICKS ON C AC H 1JBJCCT. 

^Mr. Riccio opened the meeting with a review of the City staff meeting on 
- Monday, April 9. He stated it was the consensus of the staff, all of 
"whom had reviewed the proposed Noise Control ordinance, that the time 
allotted is not enough to allow finalization of"~tne ordinance for presen¬ 
tation to the Council. Legal ramifications; preemptions; problems 
conserning the Port District (water craft, airport); and the general 
problems of administration must all be solved. There is a feeling that 
the Noise Abatement Officer might be part of an existing department - 
possibly the Environmental Quality Department - but this, too, is subject 
to revision as the problems are clarified by further discussion. 

Mr. Rernmey, representing Councilman Jim Bates who will introduce the 
ordinance, said it was his understanding that the Council expected an 
ordinance they could react to at the April 23 conference. He will double 
check on this. 

Legal Ramifications . Mr. Detisch, reviewing pages of handwritten notes 
containing his comments on the ordinance, brought up the following major 
points: 

Airport Noise . Possible preemption by State or Federal Government 
on this. 

Advisory Board's Appointment . The Ordinance provision that this 

Board be appointed by lottery does not accord with 
the City Charter (Sec. 43), which provides that such 
Boards be appointed by the Mayor. He will research 
this point further. Term (G months) may be too short. 


row* CE.171 (1/65) 1 





F-2 































Noise Control Joint Meeting - 4-11-73 - p. 2 


Noise Abatement Officer . Presumably, this person would be 
appointed by the City Manager, if non-classified; or by 
a department head, from a Civil Service list, if classified. 
Either route is possible - the latter takes longer. 

(Mrs. Taylor responded that the thing the Task Force wants 
most is to keep the position politically insensitive). 

Appeals Board . Same comments as on Advisory Board. (The 
suggestion was made that the Appeals Board of the Environmental 
Quality Department might also serve for noise control.) 

Enforcement . Mr. Detisch said enforcement powers must be 
determined. Are we envisioning one man with a citation book? 
Should responsibility for monitoring be given to firemen or 
policemen? (Owen Jensen said that the noise level of the City 
rises 1 t o 1 % decibels per year; in 10 years it will be too 
high to live with - thus it behooves the City to take action 
now, while this danger to health can still be controlled). 

Will he have the ability to subpoena, as the ordinance indicates? 
The City Council has the ability to subpoena people to produce 
papers, and to some extent this power has been delegated to 
the Civil Service Commission; but whether it can be delegated 
on this scale is a question that demands more study. 


Water Craft . Mr. Detisch said the Port District control of 
tidelands and its police powers make this a very touchy area. 

More study needed. A study shows that only 6 states have provisions 
for mufflers on water craft; California is not among them. 

"Necessary Action to Abate N o ise " - what does the Task Force 
mean by this? (Owen Jensen said a series of penalties was envisioned 
with shut-down of factories or other industries as an extreme 
measure. These penalties should not preclude the officer from 
seeking voluntary compliance). 

"noise" vs. "sound. " Mr. Detisch suggested this be standardized. 
(Carole Tanner said noise is subjective, sound objective; and 
that the Task Force agreed the phrase "sound source" would best 
indicate the offender). 

Recovery of Cost (p. 7) . Needs clarification. 

Noise Abatement Officer to inte r pret and clarify . Mr. Detisch 
questioned the intent here. (Task Force said it was to avoid 
requiring public hearings on matters that were purely adminis¬ 
trative. ) 


F-3 













Noise Control - joint meeting of 4-11-73 - p.3 


Adoption of Rules . After some discussion of ways of doing this, 
the Task Force decided that the rules could be adopted by 
resolution and incorporated in the ordinance only by reference 
(i.e., Environmental Quality ordinance and "Guidelines"). 

Insert "reasonable ." On P. 8, Mr. Detisch suggested the wording 
"order owner of device to conduct such reasonable tests as 
are..." (Agreed) . 

40 decibels above ambient noise level in re: Aircraft . In 
answer to a question from Mr. Detisch concerning the reason¬ 
ableness of the above, Task Force said our ordinance was more 
liberal than many others already in force. (Carole Tanner 
injected a minority opinion; she considers it fairly strict). 

National Defense Superse ded in re; Aircra ft. Mr. Detisch 
said San Diego had a real problem here because of the military 
airports - Task Force agreed that City could not regulate noise 
of military aircraft. 

Vehicle Noises . Mr. Detisch said the City was possibly pre- . 
empted by the State Vehicle Code. An article from the newspaper, 
detailing Attorney-General's opinion that City cannot regulate 
vehicle noise was shown to Task Force members. Captain Davis 
of the Police Department said there was no problem in his en¬ 
forcement of the code, except that he did not have enough man¬ 
power to cover all areas. If sound-measuring equipment is 
furnished the police, and more manpower is afforded, that 
department can enforce noise control under the State provisions. 

Mr. Detisch had other points to be clarified - but, due to time 
limitations, suggested that he provide a draft of his remarks 
to the Task Force and to City Staff for consideration. 

Course of Immediate Action . The Task Force offered to meet at any 
time with City staff, to speed action. Mr. Detisch said he felt 
he would need at least 30 days to thoroughly research the legal points. 

Merrill Day Presentation . Mr. Day said the State had indeed pre¬ 
empted the City in this field, and, that, moreover, according to 
State standards the City of San Diego itself has no problem: 

Montgomery Field and Brown Field meet the standards, and Lindberg 
Field belongs to the Port District. He said he feels Federal standards 
will pre-empt the State. FAA standards already control airplanes 
in flight. To work out our noise problems we will need cooperation 
from Port District, County, State and particularly the military. 

Land use and zoning will help because only by doing this can we keep 
people from moving directly into the noise pattern. These are two 
moves we can make now but not in this ordinance. It is very im¬ 
portant that anything that is adopted be enforceable - to adopt an 
unenforceable ordinance only erodes respect for government and all 
agencies become suspect. (Owen Jensen also spoke on noise zoning 
and restrictions on land use around airports as a focal point of 
noise control). 


F-4 










Noise Control - joint meeting of 4-11-73 - p. 4 


Po rt Distr ic t Monitoring Plan . Carole Tanner asked the status of 
this; Ed Riccio said he would find out and let her know. (Mr. Day 
said to contact John Wilbur). 

Am endment o f Community Plan . It was agreed that some community 
plans should be amended to restrict residential areas which would 
fall into high noise levels (University Plan is already being 
amended on this point). 

Divis i on o f Hig hways Letter . Mr. Riccio passed around a letter 
from the Division of Highways, which enumerated the many examples 
of noi.se which must be allowed during night hours when the State 
had to work. 

E ducation . Mrs. Taylor said the education of the public is the 
most important aspect, and an ordinance on the book,would be 
better than none. Perfection could come later - the important 
thing is to get moving. 

DECISION. After much discussion. City staff and Task Force agreed 
that; 

A completed ordinance, ready for action, cannot be submitted 
to Council by the April 23 deadline; 

A complete legal opinion can be prepared by Mr. Detisch (possibly) s 
by that time; 

Incorporated in our report will be a request for 30 to 45 
days more time in which to come up with a viable ordinance. 

City staff and Task Force will continue to meet as often as 
possible to work out details. 

Mr. Riccio will attend the Task Force meetin on April 12 to- 
explain City staff's problems. 

Next joint meeting will be Wednesday, April 18, at 3 p.m., 

7th floor conference room-, Cirty Administration Building. 


Respectfully submitted 



LoVerne Brown, Secretary 


F-5 


» 










I 


CITy'OF SAN DIEGO 
E*iCINrCRINC DEPARTMENT 

COHI-EP.ENCE NOTES 


DISTRI3UTI0N: 

OATE TILE (2) 
DIVISION fIIE 


f' 


rcKCNCC »toutiTCO evi 




City staff - Joint Meeting with 
CHPA Noise Task Force 


4-18-73 


T»m£ ITARTEU 


3 p.m. 


PURPOSE 


PARTICIPANTS 


L 9 < i. 4 li ,0 rloor, CAB 

T IME ENOEO 

5:30 p.m. 


Procedure on ordinance 

PRESENT |OR;*Nl2*T»ON. TITlEI 


To prepare viable ordinance for Counc 


U 


From CKPA: Maureen Smith, Rae Madson, Lucy Pryde, Carole Tanner, Walter 
Sorochan, Bob Ellenwood, Owen Jensen. 


From City staff: Ed Riccio, Coordinator; Jack Sarvelq, Environmental 
Quality; Dave Potter, Planning; GordSB Murmjct, Bldg. Inspection; 
Inspector R. Ml b av ir s , Police; D on Detisch t City Attorney (Mr. Detisch 
did hot attend the first hour of the meeting). 


From Councilman Bates' office: Haines Remev., 

Councilman Bates, and a volunteer student worker on noise control. 
Miss Barbara Ernisse, arrived at 5:05 and remained for the rest of the 
meeting. 


SUBJECTS DISCUSSED . summarize - include pAnriciRANTS and concise statements op conclusions, and/cr 

RECOMMENDATIONS ON EACH SUBJECT. 

\ 

r. Riccio called the meeting to order at 3 p.m: The following subjects 
were discussed: 

CHPA Meeting of April 12 . Mr. Riccio said he enjoyed attending this raeet- 
-ing, which Mr. R.emey also attended, and was pleased to witness the 
■efficient and effective way with which the committee worked. He said 
the City owed a debt of gratitude to all members of the task force for 
| getting the noise control ordinance to the stage in which it now is. 

; ; City staf f will now a ppl y i tself enthusiastically to the task of making 
>. : it what we all look forward to - an enforceable ordinance. 

In answer to the question "When can we go to Council with an ordinance?" 

Mr. Riccio stated that the goal was a noise abatement program of which 
the ordinance would be an integral part, and City and CHPA were in 
agreement on most items; however, the duties of the no is*' abatement 
officer, the appointment of the jippeaJLs.board, and certain matters or 
pre-emption were still to be addressed from a legal standpoint. 

At present, it would probably be 30 days before Mr. Detisch would have 
an ordinance in draft form, with ail these legal problems solved. 

Placement of Noise Abatement Officer . The Task Force expressed general 
agreement with the City's view that the N.A. officer should be a cj 1 a&P.iiLicd 
employee Q f the Citv. and assigned probably to bhe Environmental Quality 
i-eoaxtmen u . 

Mr. Remey suggested, and those present agreed, that by making this a 
staff position, akin to Zoning Administrator, it could function in an 


rcrM.’CE.'T! (1/65! 


F-6 


























independent capacity and remain free of political sensitivity. 

Appeals Board. CHPA personnel remain strongly in favor of the lottery process 
if a legal way can be found. (Arriving later, Don Detisch said that it might be 
possible to draw a panel of names by lottery and let the Mayor make his appointments 
from that panel). 

CHPA prefers a separate Appeals Board, not assignment of noise control 
appeals to the EQD Appeals Board. 

Port District Involvement. Ed Riccio said he had talked with John Wilbur, Port 
Engineer, and learned that they had prepared plans and specs and were calling for 
bids April 29 on eight monitoring stations, which would check jet noise - 2 on line 
of flight, one at Point Loma, others along various strategic points of the field border. 
Monitoring equipment will be placed on existing utility poles, 10 feet above the highest 
adjoining building. Decibels allowed - 75. Wilbur will send an updated report on this 
project after bids are opened. 

(Don Detisch arrived.) 

Police Functions to Continue. It was generally agreed that the functions now assigned 
to police should continue to be theirs, but CHPA would pre er certain items added to 
the list of unnecessary noise makers (Mr. Detisch said these things could be salvaged 
from ordinance). 

Inspector Davis approved this concept and said he was preparing a report on 
manpower needed if the noise control ordinance now on the books was to be strictly 
enforced by use of monitoring equipment. 

Owen Jensen said he felt such items as burglar alarms and ice cream trucks 
should require a check for noise levels. 

Mr. Remey said it seemed that the cut-off between police function and Noise 
Abatement Officer function would depend on whether police power or purely 
administrative law was involved. 

Legal Ramifications . Answering questions from CHPA staff, Don Detisch made the 
following comments: In principle the approach utilized in the proposed Noise 
ordinance is legally feasible; however, there are problems to be ironed out. 

He has been in contact with EPA offices in San Francisco and has discovered 
they are at least a year away from having any standards developed. He asked if 
the standards included in the ordinance are substantially the same as those now 
being considered by EPA; he was assured they were. 

Carole Tanner added to this that she expected the City ordinance standards 
to be stricter than those finally adopted by the Federal government. Dr. Sorochan 
said that if any conflicts developed, a clause in the ordinance could accommodate 
any needed adjustment - what we need is our ordinance now. 


F-7 







Detisch (continued). 

While the Board must be appointed by the Mayor, the ordinance could stipulate 
what disciplines should be represented on the Board (if it were not done by lottery). 

The matter of whether or not it could be done by lottery, with the Mayor appointing 
from a panel prepared in that way, requires more research. 

The Noise Abatement Officer has been assigned some duties in the ordinance 
that are subject to research. Does he have police power? Would he have peace 
officer status ? These are powers our Zoning Administrator doesn't have, and they 
may not be needed. 

No word has been received in the Burbank case. 

A noise convention is being held in Washington, D.C. April 29, (Ed Riccio 
interjected that he earlier had planned to go but had considered further that Bill 
Harrington, our "man in Washington”, could collect all the information needed, and 
his time might better be spent here, working directly on the ordinance). 

Watercraft control can be worked out. The Port District has a rule against 
sirens on boats. 

Time Schedule. CHPA people pressed for some definite answers on a time schedule. 
Don said it would take him 30 days to work out the problems, and a draft ordinance 
for their consideration, if they wished this. (CHPA said they very much wanted an 
ordinance they could look at and evaluate). 

Certification and registration of equipment (see p. 10) . Ed Riccio said he objected to 
making the Noise Abatement Officer responsible for inspecting and certifying equipment; 
that this should work on manufacturers' standards, with equipment that met noise 
standards being required. 

Owen Jensen said the word "may" in the ordinance did not make this necessary 
but gave the officer this power if he wished to exercise it. 

Don Detisch said he would have to check whether this could be done under 
California and City law. 

What Goes to Council Conference on April 23 . Don Detisch said he would have ready 
a Report to Council dealing with the legal problems and asking for further time in 
which to draft an ordinance. He feels 30 days is the minimum time needed. 

Ed Riccio said a manager's report, being prepared in the EQD office, would 
accompany the Attorney's report, and would present a time schedule. 

CHPA said they would like 15 days to consider and possibly modify the draft 
ordinance before it went to Council conference - this would mean 45 days from 
April 23. 

During this time, CHPA might hold public meetings to get input and to prepare 
the public for the ordinance. 


F-8 






4 


Noise Attenuation . Ed Riccio said that Gordon Murdoch (who 
had to leave early) had prepared a report on the inclusion of 
this item in the Building Code 

CHPA and City staff agreed this cduld be done, and that 
it could be referred to in the ordinance by reference only. 

(Councilman Bates and student worker Barbara Ernissaarrived). 

Time Schedule . The following tentative schedule was set up 
(actual dates were filled in after the meeting, based on 
number of days assigned) 

April 23 - Status report to Council Conference. 

May 23 - Draft of ordinance distributed to CHPA and others 
for review and comments. 

June 6 - Completion of Review - this period to include public 
meetings set up by CHPA to get additional input. 

June 21 - Ordinance presented to Council. 

July 5- Ordinance hopefully adopted by Council, in which case, on 
August 5 - Ordinance would become effective. 

Meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. 



f 


F-9 





CMOINIiCRINK DEPARTMENT 

COUuRENCE NOTES 

DATE H Lt ... “"ME^TIl5G S UKU1NAN C E 

division rit r ikus 

CON*r.F«lt.NCE fcE Gu CITCO bn 

Joint Meeting - City Staff & CHPA 
.Noise Task Force Committee 

°* ,c 4-25-73 

LOCATION 3 p<m> 

7thfl.. CAB 

time stahteo 

3 p • Jn • 

TIME ENDLO 

5 p.m. 


ftUOJECT I'UMPOIt 


Revision of Ordinance _Present via ble ordinance to Council _ 

PRCSLNT tOMC ANIZATION. TITLE) 

From CHPA: Virginia Taylor, Coordinator; Maureen Smith; Dr. Horton. 

From City Staff; Fd Rircio, Coordinator; Paul Schankerman, Health & 

Safety Office; Herb Eike, T,t. . Police Department; Dave Potter, Dr>vo Smith. 
Plcin.ning; Merrill Day, Airports; Gordon Murdoch, Building Inspection. 

The meeting was called to order by Mr. Riccio at 3; 10 p.m. 

The following subjects were discussed: 


SUBJECTS DISCUSSEP - summarize - include participants and concise statements op conclusions, ano/os 

RECOMMENDATIONS ON EACH SLIUJECT. 

R eview o f Counc il Action s of April 23 . Mr. Riccio distributed copies 
of his Re-oort to Council, and also of the Report to Council bv Don 
Devisn-n, and stated mat Council had accepted these recommendations 
exactly as presented. The joint City staff-CiiPA Txsk force personnel 
are now charged with coining up vith an overall noise abatement program, 
of which a noise control ordinance will be an integral part. The 
matter of noise attenuation is referred to the Building Inspection 
Department to develop a separate ordinance, which will be incorporated 
in the general noise control ordinance only by reference. 

Public Input . Mr. Riccio said he will comply with the request of CJ1PA 
representatives that he mail out copies of the draft ordinance, when 
j ready, to various environmental groups in the City. He also suggested 
that CHPA follow Councilman Bates' suggestion and 'hold a public meeting. 
It was also suggested that representatives of the contractors, and of 
the Chamber of Commerce, be invited to our May 9 meeting, and that the 
meeting be held in a larger room so that other interested persons might 
attend. 

M ooting at Cal ifornia St ate University . First reaction of BCA was - 
how can we keep such an ordinance off the books? However, after some 
discussion, and some assurance that the draft ordinance would be made 
available to them for review, they agreed to cooperate. Dr. Brahtz 
plans to hold a seminar at the end of May at California State, to 
discuss the problems of noise control, and out of this may come a 
: public education program on noise abatement. 


ro«v CE.171 (1/601 




F-10 






























Noise Element of General Plan . Dave Potter, who is working on 
this project, said input is still forthcoming from the railroads, 
and probably won't be ready until August or September. The plan 
will not come out until after that time. 

State Guidelines . it is still very uncertain as to when this 
data will be made available. However, the ordinance can be 
so worded that it can adjust to State guidelines without the 
need for amendment. 

Attendance at Washington Conference . Don Detisoh will be representing 
the City at the N.O.I.S.E. conference in Washington, j.C. this 
weekend, and will report the results at the May 9 meeting. 

Health and Safety Data . Paul Schankerman, representing this 
department of the City, stated that data is available on various 
noise levels (airplanes, motorcycles, equipment) so far as it 
relates to the operator, but he does not have too much data on 
what affects the listener 50 feet away. This data, however, 
is available ^^CHPA staff from other sources. Mr. Schankerman 
displayed a/icvelmeher(approximately $400) and a calibrator 
(same price) which he uses to test operating machines. The sound- 
level meter indicated the level of sound in our meeting-room, when 
no airplane was overhead, was about 48 decibels; when someone 
was speaking, about 63. 

Pos s ible Interest Gr oups . In addition to environmental and business 
groups, it was suggested the following special interest groups 
might wish to attend the public meeting: Motorcyclists, boat-owners, 
rock-and-roll bands. It was suggested that some way be found - 
public relations, — television coverage - to make everyone aware 
the law was for his protection; this, it was agreed, would avoid 
80% of any future trouble. 

Sound Trucks, etc. Lt. Smith said control of nuisances such as 
this was in the hands of the Police Department and generally well 
handled. Mr. Ricc.io said the number of permits issued for sound 
trucks had declined from 50 in 1971 to 2 in 1973 so far for businesses 
and 28 in 1971 to 1 in 1973 so far for non-business activities. 

Lt. Smith said the non-commercial sound trucks were referred to 
20th & B, where dial settings were recorded for permissible levels. 
They also receive special instructions - they cannot go less than 
10 miles per hour, stop more than 1 minute without turning off the 
sound, and cannot invade the business district at any time. Sound 
trucks used in parks are given permits by the Park and Recreation 
Department. 

Injurious to Health Signs . It was suggested that signs might be 
required at rock-and-roll concerts, etc., stating that "this 
may be injurious to your health," just as on cigarets. 


F-ll 











3 


Next Meeting . The next meeting of the Joint City Staff- 
CHPA Task Force will be held May 9, at 3 p.m., in a room 
to be designated later. Agenda will be mailed . 


Respectfully submitted, 

V' . - 

'7~yr «_ • ;-. * 

LoVerne Brown, Secretary 


F-12 





APPENDIX G 


A Representative Sample of a Newspaper Article 
Educating the Public Concerning Noise 


G-l 


DAMAGE GROWS 



In Barrage 
Of Noises 


By LEIGH FENLY 

Staff Wrlttr, Th« San Dlaao Union 

It doesn’t take much to figure out that 
the wo[ld is getting. nnLsiex.and. noisier 

The urban dwelfers home environment 
is like a 4-track sound system witfh dispos¬ 
al grinding in the kitchen, television blar¬ 
ing in the living room, saws buzzing in the 
garage and Junior revving up his motorcy¬ 
cle in the driveway. 

By some extreme'estimates the sound 
level is climbing at a rate of 10 per cent 
annually, enough to make us all deaf by 
the year 2000. 

The ear is a marvel of adaptation, giving 
us a unique 360-degree contact with the 
world, but its evolutionary development 
just can’t cope with today’s noisy world. 

Damage to the inner ear is caused by 
noise assaults of high intensity over long 
periods of time. The damage is irreversi- 

Yet as hazardous as noise may be to the 
ear, its effect on the body in other ways 
may be even worse. 


Evidence Is Controversial 

The evidence is controversial but some 
researchers have found that people who 
wort around high level sounds are more 
aggressive, distrustful and irritable than 
their counterparts in quieter environ¬ 
ments. Loud noises have been said to 
contribute to marital disharmony and even 
divorce. 

A study conducted at San Diego’s Naval 
Hospital by Robert W. Cantrell, now at the 
University of Virginia, Charlottesville,- 
even connected a rise in cholesterol level 
to loud, high-pitched noises. 

Just like the ear, the body has not 
evolved to the point where it can adapt to 
distracting noise levels. Even though the 
-mind operates a sanity-keeping mecha¬ 
nism that helps mask out noise, the body is 
still responding as it would to other kinds 
of stress. Blood pressures rise; hearts 
pump faster; blood vessels constrict. 


But perhaps even more worrisome is the 
evidence that noise effects the learning 
patterns of children. Several years ago a 
team of researchers tested 54 children in 
grades two through five who had lived in a 
New York City high rise for four years or 
more. 

As might be expected noise levels at the 
top of the building were lower than those 
at the bottom. But the team also found that 
children on the lower floors scored lower 
in reading skills and in their ability to 
understand speech than those living on the 
upper floor. 

San Diego’s noise levels are less concen¬ 
trated than New York’s because of the 
urban sprawl. We have the wide open 
spaces, the soothing beat of the ocean surf, 
the silence of sunshine and the pleasing 
sounds associated with year-round recre¬ 
ation. 

Noise Heard Here 

We have our fair share of discordant 
noises too: the whir of the freeway traffic 
echoing through the canyons of Mission 
Valley, the clatter of construction — eve¬ 
rywhere — and the ear-splitting shatter of 
planes swooping low overhead. 

But, San Diegans, take heart. 

Nationally known experts say noise is 
recorded more precisely and at longer and 
more adequate levels here than anywhere 
else in the world. 

And, if it’s any consolation, our noise is 
in better control than in most U.S. cities. 

Some of the credit is due to the wort of 
the San Diego Noise Abatement and Con¬ 
trol program which was formed along with 
a noise abatement ordinance in 1973. Since 
then, the office has prosecuted and won 90 
cases. It has clamped down 
on the owners of barking 
dogs, required owners of 
noisy swimming pool pumps 
to build “hush houses’’ 
around them, and halted the 
Hare Krishnas’ daily 4:30 
a.m. chanting. 

ROCK ARENA 

Now they are entering the 
rock concert arena. 

In August, ZZ Top, that 
“little ol band from Texas”, 
performed in the San Diego 
Stadium for 22,000 fans and 
scores of others who unwill¬ 
ingly heard the concert 
while sitting in their living 
rooms. 


The noise abatement office 
says ZZ Top’s musical 
strains probably reached 130 
decibels that day, which is 
something like standing next 
to a bulldozer at full throttle. 

For comparison, football 
games in the stadium, com¬ 
plete with the roar of the 
crowd, average only 80 deci¬ 
bels, according to the abate¬ 
ment office. 

SMALLEST CHANGE 

A decibel is a measure of 
sound energy. Within a limit¬ 
ed range one decibel is the 
smallest change in sound 
that the human ear can 
detect. The leaves rustle at 
12 decibels; ordinary conver¬ 
sation is carried on at 45 
decibels; a heavy truck rum¬ 
bles by at 100 decibels; a 
riveting machine hammers 
away at 120 decibels. 

It was after the concert 
that complaints motivated 
the noise abatement crew to 
stage its own concert with 
accoustical tapes, speakers 
and noise measuring’devices 
to test how noise travels 
away from the stadium. 

The upshot of the test, if 
agreed to by the City Coun¬ 
cil, is that future rock 
groups who play at the stadi¬ 
um will probably have their 
electrical (which translates 
into accoustical) power con¬ 
trolled. San Diego would 
then become the first city in 
the country to restrict the 
volume of sound made by 
rock groups. 

UNUSUAL CASE 

ZZ Top was an unusual 
case for the noise abatement 
office which handles 12,000 
complaints a year. Sixty per 
cent of them come from peo¬ 
ple complaining about bark¬ 
ing dogs. 

James Dukes, administra¬ 
tor of the noise abatement 
program, has begun to rec¬ 
ommend the use of an elec¬ 
tric collar which gives the 
dog a shock in the voice box 
when he barks. Eventually 
the dog learns and the collar 
is no longer needed 

CiUillauaH 


G-2 




"The owner can decide be¬ 
tween a MO collar or a $900 
fine," quips Dukes. 

NOT INCLUDED 

Other noise irritants are 
more difficult to deal with. 
San Diego’s greatest noise 
problem, Lindbergh Field, is 
not in the noise abatement 
office’s jurisdiction. 
Miramar Naval Air Station 
is. As a result, jets from 
there now make a skewered 
s-shaped takeoff to bypass 
residential areas. 

Noise pollution Is Indeed 
becoming a priority prob¬ 
lem. 

The Environmental Pro¬ 
tection Agency estimates 
that more than 16 million 
people in the United States 
already suffer loss of hear¬ 
ing from noise and that an¬ 
other 40 million, not includ¬ 
ing workers, are exposed to 
the potential hazards with¬ 
out even knowing it. 

Until recently experts be¬ 
lieved that permanent hear¬ 
ing damage occurred only 
when Individuals were ex¬ 
posed to loud noise over a 40- 
year period. Now the Nation¬ 
al Institute for Occupational 
Health and Safety says that 
Just two or three years of ?. 
90-decibel dosage of sound 
daily is enough to create 
some deafness. 

As harmful as noise may 
be, it is only fair to point out 
that some noises are a nec¬ 
essary part of our lives. Be¬ 
cause we’re used to them. 
SOUND HELPS 

In some area schools that 
practice the open classroom 
technique it is thought that 
the background noise stu¬ 
dents learn in is helpful be¬ 
cause it makes them feel 
more at home. And as every¬ 
one knows a quiet night in 
the country can keep us all 
awake if we are used to the 
rush and rumble of the city. 


Total environmental si¬ 
lence does not exist except in 
anachoic or nonecho cham¬ 
bers, designed to absorb 
sound. At San Diego State 
University, the chamber, 
which is used by the physics 
department to test equip¬ 
ment, is padded with honey¬ 
combed fiberglass. 

What is heard here — or 
better yet, not heard — are 
negative frequencies: 
sounds below the audible 
level. 

FALL FLAT 

If sounds are made inside 
the chamber they fall flat 
and seem distant because 
they are not reverberating 
off the walls. Sound is lodged 
and absorbed in between the 
fiberglass wedges. 

After 20 minutes in this 
austere room with its soli¬ 
tary chair, one’s own blood 
can be heard rushing 
through the veins to the 
throat and the muscles in the 
head begin to creak like 
loose boards. 

So silent is silence here 
and so disorienting that the 
normal response Is to make 
sounds — to snap fingers, to 
do anything to re-establish 
one’s self in the noisy world 
— the normal world. 
PEOPLE REACT 
i How people react to sl- 
j lence and noise, depends on 
i how they are programmed 
; to receive sounds: a mother 
| sleeps through all the noises 
in the household until her 
baby cries. It arouses her; 
she’s programmed. 

In a recent study two 
; groups were given perform¬ 
ance tasks. One group was 
told that some jarring music 
would interfere, but to try to 
ignore it. 

The other group was told 
they were going to hear 
some music that would help 
them perform their tasks. 


As could be expected, the 
first group did poorly and 
complained about the noise; 
the second group did sub¬ 
stantially better. 

‘WATER TORTURE’ 

“It’s like Chinese water 
torture,” said Maurice 
Schiff, a La Jolla ear sur¬ 
geon. “The dropping of 
water on the stone was not 
that loud, but you’re accus¬ 
tomed to hearing it.” 

Schiff says there are more 
variables Involved than just 
the decibel level when peo¬ 
ple complain about noises. 
Barking dogs are upsetting, 
he claims, because most 
people associate the sound 
with subconscious fears of 
strange animals. 

He also believes it is not 
the intensity of rock music 
that disturbs so many peo¬ 
ple, but the rythmn and the 
beat which many find primi¬ 
tive and disturbing. 
PROBLEM CITED 
The problem, of course, 
with individual reaction to 
noise Is that it makes re¬ 
strictive legislation almost 
Impossible. Too often one 
person’s music is another 
person’s annoyance. 

Two years ago in a Tokyo 
high rise where walls are 
thin and insulation uncom¬ 
mon, a 46-year-old man 
picked up a knife, went next 
door and killed a mother and 
her two piano-playing 
daughters. 

The youngest child would 
begin practicing her chords 
about 7 a m. The okta* 
would join her a few minutes 
later. Finally Matsuxo 
Ohama had had enough. He 
sent a note complaining 
about the noise': “You should 
apologize to me,” he wrote, 
“but you don’t even ac¬ 
knowledge my presence as 
your neighbor.” 


NOTHING CHANGED 
But nothing changed. 

The next morning the chil¬ 
dren were at it again. An 
enraged Ohama jumped 
from his bed, grabbed a 
knife’ stormed the apart¬ 
ment and stabbed them all. 

Ohama was sentenced to 
death. 

We all have a greater tol¬ 
erance for the noise we 
make — our lawn mower, 
our stereo — than we have 
for noise neighbors make 
That’s part of the noise con¬ 
trol problem. 

GOES DEEPER 
Bat the situation goes 
deeper. In some people’s 
minds noise goes hand in 
hand with power. Recently a 
collection of vacuum clean¬ 
ers were given to women for 
their comments. The 
quietest vacuum was de¬ 
signed to be the most effec¬ 
tive. 

But the women repeatedly 
said the loudest machines 
did the best job. They evea 
commented that the quietest 
one didn’t seem to get the 
job done at all. 

The notion that power -is 
synonymous with noise dies 
hard, even though engineers 
already have the capability 
to quiet a broad range of 
machines without reducing 
the performance too mueh. 
Some manufacturers al¬ 
ready are advertising thMr 
1 wares by decibel levsL 
CUT POSSIBLE 
Truck noise caa be 
reduced, by 10 decibels ac¬ 
cording to a 1972 EPA report 
to Congress. The sound of 
smaller, clanking automo¬ 
biles can be cut In half; 
motorcycles reduced to one 
quarter. Our growing fleet of 
commercial jet aircraft 
could be retrofitted — at a 
price — to make them cm- 
stderably easier on the ear. 

Csatteaed 


G-3 



NBRtfiV Growing As Pollutant In 
City Living 


But refitting and redesign¬ 
ing cost money. The figure 
for lowering just the indus¬ 
trial noise level by five deci¬ 
bels is estimated somewhere 
between $8 billion and $31 
billion. 

But it costs to do nothing, 
too. The World Health Or¬ 
ganization estimates that in¬ 
dustrial noise costs $4 billion 
per year in poor perform¬ 
ance, mistakes, accidents 
and compensations. This 
year the U. S. Navy alone 
doled out $26 million in com¬ 
pensatory damages to civil¬ 
ians who suffered hearing 
losses while working in Navy 
shipyards. 


QUESTION POSED 

So the question becomes: 
What price, peace? And, are 
people, both as individuals 
and corporations, ready to 
pay? 

At this point some con¬ 
sumer groups are working to 
educate the public to the 
danger of noise, but noise 
remains low on the list of 
pollutant priorities in most 
people’s minds. And as long 
as individuals continue to 
think of power and noise, 
and loud and good, as syno¬ 
nymous, it’s likely to remain 
that way. 


On a more positive note, 
noise is one of the few envi¬ 
ronmental pollutants that 
can be controlled with the 
technology we have today — 
if the money and enforce¬ 
ment are available. 

TAKEN SERIOUSLY 

And as Dukes says, noise 
has come a long way. “A 
couple of years ago the no¬ 
tion of noise pollution was 
thought to be ludicrous. At 
least now some people are 
taking it seriously.” 

Until things do get quieter, 
the best defense against 
noise pollution is to become 
as conscious of decibel levels 
as possible. 


— You can wear ear plugs, 
although most people find 
this on a par with wearing a 
gas mask to control air pol¬ 
lution. 

— Do not use earphones 
when listening to a stereo 
unless the volume is kept 
reasonably low; earphones 
Intensify sound. 

— Limit discotheque-going 
to a few hours a week. 

— People who work in 
noisy surroundings should 
occasionally retreat to a 
quiet place. These breaks 
give the ear time to recover. 

— And if a barking dog 
disturbs your sleep, call the 
noise abatement office and 
• complain. 


Reprinted by permission of the San Diego Union . Originally published 
January 2, 1977. 




APPENDIX H 


San Diego Municipal Noise Control Ordinance 


H-l 


12-76 


SEC. 59.5.0102 


179-1 


ARTIPI F 4 1 

(Added 9-18-73 by Ord.' 11122 NS.) 

NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL 

DIVISION 1 - GENERAL 
(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N.S.) 

SEC. 59.5.0101 PURPOSE AND INTENT 

The Council of The Gty of San Diego findi and declares that: 

A. Inadequately controlled noise presents a growing danger to thchcalth and>welfare of the 
residents of the Gty of San Diego; 

B. The making and creating of disturbing, excessive, or offensive noises within the juris¬ 
dictional limits of the City of San Diego is a condition which has persisted, and the level and 
frequency of occurrences of such noises continue to increase; 

C. The making, creation, or continuance of such excessive noises, which are prolonged or 
unusual in their time, place, and use, attect and arc a. detriment to the public health, comfort, 
convenience, safety, welfare, and prosperity of the residents of the Gty of San Diego; 

D. Every pmorrii entitled to an environment in which the noise is not detrimental to his 
or her life, health, or enjoyment of property; and 

E. The necessity, in the public interest, for the provisions and prohibitions hereinafter con¬ 
tained and enacted is declared to be a matter of legislative determination and public policy, 
•rd U Is further declared that the provisions and prohibitions hereinafter contained and enacted 
are in pursuance of and for the purpose of securing and promoting the public health, comfort, 
convenience, safety, welfare, prosperity, peace, and quiet of the City of San Diego and its 
inhabitants. 

(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N.S.) 

(Amended 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 N.S.) 

SEC. 59.5.0.102. DEFINITIONS 

Whenever the following words and phrases are used In this article, they shall have the mean¬ 
ing ascribed to them in this’section: 

A. Average Sound Level - a sound level typical of the sound levels at a certain place during 
a given period of time, averaged by the general rule of combination for sound levels, said 
general rule being set forth in American National Standard Specifications for Sound Level 
Meters SI. 4-1971. Average sound level is also called-equivalent continuous sound level. 

B. Community Noise''Equivalent Level — an average sound level during a 24-hour day, 
obtained after addition b( fivo(5) decibels to sound levols-irr the evening from 7:00 p:m. to 
10:00 p.m., and after addition of ten (10) decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 a.m. 
and after 10:00 p.m. 

C. Construction Equipment — any tools, machinery, or equipment used in connection with 
construction operations,‘including all types of “special construction” equipment as-defined in 
the pertinent sections of the California Vehicle Code when used in the construction process on 
any construction site, regardless of whether such construction site be located on-highway or 
off-highway. 

D. Decibel (dB) — a unit measure of sound (noise) level. 

E. Emergency Work — work made necessary to restore property to a safe condition follow¬ 
ing a public calamity, or work required to protect persons or property from imminent exposure 
to danger of damage, or work by public or private utilities when restoring utility service. 

F. Motor Vehicles — any and all self-propelled vehicles as defined in the California Vehicle 
Code, specifically including but not limited to “mini-bikes" and "go-carts.” 

G. Noise Level — the same as “sound level." The terms may be used interchangeably herein. 

H. Person -~a person, firm, association, copartnership, joint venture, corporation, or any 
entity, public or private. 

I. Sound Level - in decibels, that quantity measured with a sound level meter as defined 
herein, by use of the “A" frequency weighting and “fast” time averaging unless some other 
time averaging is specified. 

J. Sound Level Meter — an instrument for the measurement of sound, including a micro- 
phone, an amplifier, an attenuator, networks at least for the standardized frequency weighting 
A, and an indicating instrument having at least the standarized dynamic characteristic “fast,” 
as specified in American National Standard Specifications for Sound Level Meters SI. 4-1971 
or its successor. 

K. Sound Amplifying Equipment — equipment as specified in Section 33.0203b of the San 
Diego Municipal CodeJ 

L. Disturbing. Excessive or Offensive Noise — any sound or noise conflicting with the cri¬ 
teria or levels set forth in this article. 

M. Supplementary Definitions of Technical Terms — definitions of technical terms not 
defined herein shall be obtained from American National Standard Acoustical Terminology, 
SI.1-1960 (R-19761. 

(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122N5.) 

(Amended 9 22-76 by Ord. 11916 N«S.) 


H-2 
















SEC. 59.5.0103 


12-76 


SEC. 59.5.0103 SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENT 

(Added 9 18-73 by Ord. 11122 N.S.) 

(Repealed 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 NS.) 

SEC. 59.5.0104 SEVERABILITY 

(Added 9-18-83 by Ord. 11122 N3.) 

(Renumbered 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 N3. now Sec. 59.5.0607.) 


DIVISION 2 - ADMINISTRATION 
(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N3.) 

SEC. 593.0201 ESTABLISHMENT OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL 
ADMINISTRATOR 

There is hereby established within the Building Inspection Department of The City of San 
Diego the function of Noise Abatement and Control Administration which shall be admin¬ 
istered by the Noise Abatement Officer (hereinafter referred to as the “Administrator"). In the 
performance of such duties as may be established, the Administrator shall be required to 
possess sufficient background and ability as is set forth in the Manual of Class Specifications 
for The City of San Diego. 

(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N3.) 

(Amended 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 NS.) 

SEC. 593.0202 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ADMINISTRATOR 

A. The Administrator and his staff have the responsibility of regulating and controlling the 
emission of all excessive or offensive noises within the City of San Diego and shall take such 
action, subject to the provisions of this article, as is reasonable and necessary to abate noise. 
The Administrator shall coordinate the activities of all City departments relating to noise con¬ 
trol and reduction in those activities carried out by the various departments, including the 
Environmental Impact Report review process relating to noise pollution. The Administrator 
may exercise or delegate any of the functions, powers and duties vested in his office or in the 
administration of his office. 

B. The Administrator is expressly charged: 

1. To make any necessary investigations, inspections, or studies which, in his opinion, 
are necessary for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this article or controlling or abating 
a disturbing, excessive or offensive noise. Information derived from noise studies shall be made 
available to the public upon request. 

2. To institute necessary proceedings to prosecute violations of this article and to com¬ 
pel the prevention and abatement of disturbing, excessive, or offensive noise, and as further 
set forth in Division 6 of this article. 

3. To grant or issue variances, permits, notices, or other matters required under the 
provisions of this article as will not be contrary to its intent or detrimental to the public health, 
safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of San Diego, when, due to special rondi- 
tions, strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of this article would 
result in unusual difficulties or unnecessary hardship or be inconsist - nt with the general pur¬ 
poses of this article. In granting any such variance or permit, the Administrator sh: II hold 
hearings and may impose such conditions as he deems necessary or desirable to protect the 
public health, safety, and general welfare in accordance with this article. 

4. To do any and all other acts which may be necessary for the successful prosecution 
of the purposes of this article and such other acts as may be specifically enumerated herein 
as duties. 

C. The Administrator may present to the Board for Abatement and Control of Noise 
(hereinafter referred to as the “Board”), as defined in Section 59.5.0207 of this article, for 
review and comment reports with specific recommendations for amendments to existing legis¬ 
lation, or for new legislation that is required to assure to the residents of the City of San Diego 
a quiet environment in accordance with this article. 

(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N3.) 

(Amended 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 N3.) 

SEC. 593.0205 ISSUANCE OF PERMITS OR VARIANCES BY ADMINISTRATOR 

The Administrator shall evaluate all applications for permits or variances from the require¬ 
ments of this article and may grant said variances with respect to time for compliance, subject 
to such terms, conditions, and requirements as he or she may deem reasonable to achieving 
compliance with the provisions of this article. Each such variance shall set forth in detail the 
approved method of achieving compliance and a time schedule for its accomplishment. If 
in the judgment of the Administrator the time for compliance cannot be reasonably deter¬ 
mined, a permit to cause the noise may be issued for a period not to exceed three (3) years. 
In determining the reasonableness of the terms of any proposed permit or variance, said Admin¬ 
istrator shall consider the magnitude of nuisance caused by the offens.vc noise, the uses of 


179- 


H-3 



12-76 


SEC. 59.5.0207 


property within the area of impingement by the noite, operations carried on under existing 
nonconforming rights or conditional use permits or zone variances, the time factors related to 
study, design, financing and construction of remedial work, the economic factors related to 
age and useful life of the equipment and the general public interest and welfare. 

A nominal fee shall be charged to each applicant for processing permits or variances. Fee 
schedules shall be approved by Council resolution. A report of permits and variances shall be 
prepared monthly and be available for public review. 

(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N.S.) 

. (Amended 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 N.S.) 

SEC. 59.5.0204 APPEALS 

Any person directly affected by the noise and/or the applicant who is aggrieved by appro¬ 
val or disapproval of a variance or permit by the Administrator may appeal in writing to the 
Board. In the case of a permit denial, the Board shall meet as soon as feasibly practical in order 
to consider the matter. All other appeals shall be scheduled in the Board's regular course of 
business. The Board may take such action as is set forth in Section 59.5.0207 of this article. 

(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 NS.) 

(Amended 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 N.S.) 

SEC. 59.5.0205 INSPECTION BY ADMINISTRATOR 

A. The Administrator may inspect, at any reasonable time and in a reasonable manner, any 
device or mechanism (1) which is intended to, or which actually does produce sound and (2) 
which creates or may create any disturbing noise, including, but not limited to, the premises 
where such device or mechanism is used. 

B. If entry to premises is denied or refused, the Administrator shall obtain an inspection 
warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction. 

(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 1U22N.S.) 

(Amended 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 NS.) 

SEC. 59.5.0206 THE SAN DIEGO CITY NOISE MAP 

A. The official record of noise levels in the City of San Diego shall be the San Diego City 
Noise Map. The Administrator shall compile existing records of sound level measurements avail¬ 
able to The City of San Diego, and take further sound level measurements as necessary. From 
these records and measurements, the Administrator shalL determine Community Noise Equiva¬ 
lent Levels (CNEL) and prepare the map for The City of San Diego. The map shall be suffici¬ 
ently detailed to enable a resident to locate his place of residence. Where adequate data are 
available, the map shall be marked with isograms of Community Noise Equivalent Levels at 
sixty (60) decibels, and at five (5) decibel intervals above sixty (60) decibels. 

B. At least once each year the Administrator shall revise the San Diego City Noise Map, 
correcting any inadequacies that may have become evident particularly from noise measure¬ 
ments made during the preceding year. 

C. Any person may request the Administrator to accept for a location within the City of 
San Diego, a Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) where none is shown at that location 
on the San Diego City Noise Map or which differs from one shown there, subject to the follow¬ 
ing requirements. The request shall be accompanied by an estimate of the annual Community 
Noise Equivalent Level at the place that is based on (1) a survey of noise there that includes 
essentially continuous measurement of the sound level over a period of at least two (2) weeks, 
and (2) appropriate information about the noise-making activity in the area during the test 
period and during the preceding year. These two items shall be such as to support the stated 
estimate of annual Community Noise Equivalent Level within an accuracy of two (2) decibels. 
The survey and estimate of annual Community Noise Equivalent Level for the specific date and 
place shall be made by a qualified acoustical consultant at the expense of the applicant. 

(Old Sec. 59.5.0206 ADMINISTRATOR'S GUIDELINES - Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 

NS.; repealed 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 N.S.) 

(New Sec. 59.5.0206 THE SAN DIEGO CITY NOISE MAP • Added 9-22-76 by Oni. 11916 

NS.) 

SEC. 593.0207 BOARD FOR ABATEMENT AND CONTROL OF NOISE 
A. Creation of Membership 

There is hereby created a Board for Abatement and Control of Noise which shall consist of 
eleven (i 1) members; otic (1) shall be qualified by training and experience in the field of acous¬ 
tics; one (1) shall be qualified by training, experience and registration in the field of mechanical 
engineering; one (1) shall be qualified by training, experience and licensing in the field of archi¬ 
tecture; one (1) shall be a qualified physician by training, experience and licensing in the field 
of physiological effects of noise; one (1) shall be a qualified audiologist by training, experience 
and licensing; one (1) construction industry contractor; one (1) electronics engineer; one (1) 
economist; and three (3) general members of the public. The members shall be appointed by 
the Mayor and confirmed by the Council. Appointments shall be made for two-year terms and 
each member shall serve until his successor is duly appointed and qualified. The members shall 
be appointed in such manner that the terms of not more than six (6) members shall expire in 
any year. The expiration date of all terms shall be January 1. Vacancies shall be filled for the 


179-3 


H-4 




SEC. 59.5.0207 


12-76 


unexpired term of the member whose place becomes vacant. The Mayor shall designate a 
chairman during January of each year; however, in the absence of such designation, the Board 
shall, on or after February 15, select from among its members a chairman. Such members 
shall serv: without compensation. 

B. Me etings 

T. "the Board shall meet regularly once a month, or more often if necessary, for the 
transaction of business. It shall establish its own rules and procedures necessary or convenient 
for the conduct of business. 

2. Six (6) members of the Board shall consitute a quorum. The affirmative vote of not 
lew that five (5) members shall be necessary for any action of the Board. 

C. Powers and Duties 

1. The Board shall hear and determine appeals from the rulings and determinations of 
the Noise Abatement and Control Administrator. Such Board may affirm, modify, or over¬ 
rule the Administrator's rulings and determinations and shall be guided by the same < onsider- 
ations as set forth in Section 59.5.0203 and Division 4 of this article. A decision of the Admin¬ 
istrator to refer a matter to the City Attorney for criminal action shall not be appealable to 
the Board. 

2. The Board shall consult with and assist the Administrator in the performance of his 
duties and responsibilities as set forth herein. 

3. The Director of Building Inspection Department shall act as Secretary to the Board. 
The Secretary shall cause minutes of each meeting of the Board to be kept accurately and 
distributed promptly. He shall cause appropriate written notice of each forthcoming meeting 
to be given to all members of the Board and to persons who have business with the Board. 
He shall procure, prepare, and distribute to members of the Board information which the 
Board, or any of its members, may require for transaction of business of the Board. 

(Old Sec. 59.5.0207 AMENDMENT TO OTHER ORDINANCES - Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 

11122 N.S., repealed 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 N5.) 

(New Sec. 59.5.0207 BOARD FOR ABATEMENT AND CONTROL OF NOISE - Added 

9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 NS. - formerly Sec. 59.5.0208.) 

(Amended 2-2-77 by Ord. 12003 N.S.) 

SEC. 59.5.0208 BOARD OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL 

(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N.S.) 

(Renumbered to Sec. 593.0207 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 N.S.) 

DIVISION 3 - NOISE ABATEMENT CONTRACT COMPLIANCE 
(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N3.) 

SEC. 593.0301 CONTRACT PROVISIONS 

A. Contract 

As used in this section, the term "contract” shall mean any written agreement or legal 
instrument whereby The City of San Diego is committed to expend, or does expend, public 
funds in consideration for work, labor, services, equipment, or any combination of the forego¬ 
ing, except that the term “contract” shall not include: 

1. Contracts for financial or other assistance entered into by The City of San Diego with 
any federal, state or other local governmental entity or agency. . 

2. Contracts, resolutions, indentures, declarations of trust, or other legal instruments 
authorizing or relating to (a) the purchase of insurance, (b) the authorization, issuance, award 
and sale of bonds, and (c) certificates of indebtedness, notes, or other fiscal obligations of the 
City. 

B. Contract Provisions 

No contract shall be awarded or entered into by The City of San Diego unless such contract 
contains provisions requiring that: 

Devices and activities which will be operated, conducted, or constructed pursuant to the 
contract and which are subject to the provisions of this Code, will be operated, conducted, or 
constructed without causing a violation of this article. 

C. Regulations 

The Administrator may, from time to time, recommend to the City's Purchasing Agent 
and/or other City departments such specifications for the operation or construction of devices 
and activities pursuant to City contracts. The Administrator shall make the recommendations 
necessary to achieve compliance with the provisions of this section. 

D. No person shall cause or permit the operations of a device or conducting of an activity 
in such a way as to violate any provisions of a contract required by th : s action. 

E. The provisions of this section shall not apply to those contracts awarded prior to three 
(3) months from the effective date (October 19, 1973) of this article. 

(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 NS.) 

(Amended 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 N3.) 


H-5 








12-76 


SEC. 59.5.0402 


179-5 


DIVISION 4 - LIMITS 

(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N.S.; Amended 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 N.S. which 
cfongc4 title u> LIMITS • formerly NOISE LEVEL LIMITS, STANDARDS AND CONTROL.) 

SEC. 59.5.0401 SOUND LEVEL LIMITS 

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to cause noise by any means to the extent that the 
one-hour average sound level exceeds the applicable limit given in the following table, at any 
location in the City of San Diego on or beyond the boundaries of the property on which the 
noise is produced. The noise subject to these limits is that part of the total noise at the speci¬ 
fied location that is due solely to the action of said person. 

TABLE OF APPLICABLE LIMITS 



Land Use Zone 

Time of Day 

One-Hour 
Average 
Sound Level 
(decibels) 

1. 

Residential: 






All R-l. 

. 7 

ana. to 

7 p.m. 




7 

p.m. to 

10 p.m.-. 




10 

p.m. to 

7 a_m. 


2. 

All R-2. 

.. 7 

a.m. to 

7 p.m. 



* 

7 

p.m. to 

10 p.m. 

.50 



10 

p.m. to 

7 a.m. 

.45 

3. 

R-S, R-4 and all. 

. 7 

ana. to 

7 p.m.i 

.60 


other Residential 

7 

p.m. to 

10 p.m. 




10 

p.m. to 

7 a.m. 


4. 

All Commercial. 

. 7 

a.m. to 

7 p.m. 

.65 



7 

p.m. to 

10 p.m. 

.60 



10 

p.m. to 

7 a.m. 

.60 

5. 

Manufacturing, all.. 


any time . 

.75 


other Industrial, 
including Agricultural 
and Extractive Industry 

B. The sound level limit at a location on a boundary between two (2) zoning districts is 
the arithmetic mean of the respective limits for the two (2) districts. Permissible construction 
noise level limits shall be governed by Sections 59.5.0404 and 59.5.0405 of this article. 

C. Fixed-location public utility distribution or transmission facilities located on or adjacent 
to a property line shall be subject to the noise level limits of Part A. of this section, measured 
at or beyond six (6) feet from the boundary of the easement upon which the equipment is 
located. 

(Old Sec. 59.5.0401 FIXED AND NONSTATIONARY SOURCES - Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 
11122 N.S.; repealed 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 N.S.) 

(New Sec. 59.5.0401 SOUND LEVEL LIMITS - Added 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 N.S.) 

SEC. 59.5.0402 MOTOR VEHICLES 
A. 1. Off-Highway 

Except as otherwise provided for in this article, it shall be unlawful to operate any motor 
vehicle of any type' on any site, other than on a public street or highway as defined in the 
California Vehicle Code, in any manner so as to cause noise in excess of those noise levels per¬ 
mitted for on-highway motor vehicles as specified in the table for “45 mile-per-hour or less 
speed limits" contained in Section 23130 of the California Vehicle Code, and as corrected for 
distances set forth in subsection A.2. below. 

2. Corrections 

The maximum noise level as the off-highway vehicle passes may be measured at a dis¬ 
tance of other than fifty (50) feet from the center line of travel, provided the measurement is 
further adjusted by adding algebraically the applicable correction as r ollows: 

Distance (feet) Correction (decibels) 


25. 


28. 


32. 


35. 


40'. 

. . . . -2 

45'. 


50 (preferred distance) . . . 


56. 

. . . . + 1 

63. 

. . . . +2 

70. 

. . . . +3 

80. 


90. 

. . . . ♦ 5 

100.. 



H-6 









































SEC. 593.0402 


12-76 


3. A measured noise level thus corrected shall be deemed in violation of this section if it 
exceeds the applicable noise-level limit as specified above. 

B. Nothing in this section shall apply to authorized emergency vehicles when being used in 
emergency situations, including the blowing of sirens and/or horns. 

(Old Sec. 59.5.0402 VEHICLE AND NONSTATIONARY SOURCE REPAIRS - Added 
9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N.S.; repealed 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 NS.) 

(New See. 59.5.0402 MOTOR VEHICLES - Added 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 NS. • formerly 
Sec. 59.5.0403.) 

, SEC. 593.0403 WATERCRAFT 

Violations for excessive noise of watercraft operating in waters under the jurisdiction of 
The City of San Diego shall be prosecuted under applicable provisions of the California Harbors 
and Navigation Code. Permits issued by The City df San Diego for the operation of watercraft 
not in compliance with noise criteria of the Harbors and Navigation Code shall be reviewed and 
approved by the Administrator prior to issuance. 

(Old Sec. 59.5.0403 MOTOR VEHICLES - added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N3.; renumbered 
_ 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 NS. • now Sec. 59.5.0402.) 

(New Section 59.5.0403 WATERCRAFT - added and amended 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 NS. 
formerly Sec. 593.0407.) 

SEC. 593.0404 CONSTRUCTION NOISE 

A. It shall be unlawful for any person, between the hours of 7:00 p.m. of any day and 
7:00 a.m. of the following day, or on legal holidays as specified in Section 21.04 o. the San 
Diego Municipal Code, with exception of Columbus Day and Washington's Birthday, or on Sun¬ 
days, to erect, construct, demolish, excavate for, alter or repair any building or structure in 
such a manner as to create disturbing, excessive or offensive noise unless a permit has been 
applied for and granted beforehand by the Noise Abatement and Control Administrator. 
In granting such permit, the Administrator shall consider whether the construction noise in the 
vicinity of the proposed work site would be less objectionable at night than during the daytime 
because of different population densities or different neighboring activities; whether obstruc¬ 
tion and interference with traffic particularly on streets of major importance. Would be less 
objectionable at night than during the daytime; whether the type of work to be performed 
emits noises at such a low level as to not cause significant disturbances in the vicinity of the 
work site; the character and nature of the neighborhood of the proposed work site; whether 
great economic hardship would occur if the work were spread over a longer time; whether 
proposed night work is in the general public interest: and he shall prescribe such conditions, 
working times, types of construction equipment to be used, and permissible noise levels as he 
deems to be required in the public interest. 

B. The provisions of this section shall not apply to emergency work as defined herein, pro¬ 
vided that the Administrator shall be notified of such emergency work forthwith. 

(Old Sec. 59.5.0404 URBAN TRANSIT BUSES - Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N.S.; re¬ 
pealed 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 N.S.) 

(New Sec. 59.5.0404 CONSTRUCTION NOISE - Added and amended 9-22-76 by Ord. 
11916 NS. formerly Sec. 59.5.0408.) 

SEC. 593.0405 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 

A. Except as provided in subsection B. hereof, it shall be unlawful for any person, including 
The City of San Diego, to conduct any construction activity so as to cause, at or within the 
property lines of any property zoned residential, an average sound level greater than seventy- 
five (75) decibels during the twelve (12) hour period from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 

B. The provisions of subsection A. of this section shall not apply to construction equipment 
used in connection with emergency work, provided the Administrator is notified within forty- 
eight (48) hours after commencement of work. 

(Old Sec. 59.5.0405 POWERED MODEL VEHICLES - Added 9-18-73 by Ord. U122N3.; 
repealed 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 M.S.) 

(New Sec. 59.5.0405 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES - Added and amended 9-22-76 by 
Ord. 11916 N.S. formerly Sec. 59.5.0409.) 

SEC. 593.0406 REFUSE VEHICLES AND PARKING LOT SWEEPERS 

No person shall operate or permit to be operated a refuse compacting, processing or collec¬ 
tion vehicle or parking lot sweeper between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 aon. in any residen¬ 
tial area unless a permit ha* been applied for and granted by the Administrator. 

(Sec. 59.5.0406 REFUSE VEHICLES - Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N3.; amended 9-22- 
76 by Ord. 11916NS.) 

SEC. 593.0407 WATERCRAFT 

(Added 9 18-73 by Ord. 11122 N.S.) 

(Renumbered 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 NS., now Sec. 59.5.0403.) 

SEC. 59.5.0408 CONSTRUCTION NOISE 
(Added 9-18-83 by Ord. 11122 NS.) 

(Renumbered 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 NS., now Sec. 59.5.0404.) 


1791 


H-7 



12-76 


SEC. 59.5.0502 


SEC. 59.5.0409 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 
(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N.S.) 

(Renumbered 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 N S., now Sec. 59.5.0405.) 

SEC. 59.5.0410 CONTAINERS AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL 

(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N.S.) 

(Repealed 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916N.S.) 

SEC. 59-5.0411 EXTERIOR NOISE ISOLATION STANDARDS 

(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N.S.) 

(Repealed 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916N.S.) 

SEC. 59.5.0412 TRAIN HORNS AND WHISTLES - EXCESSIVE SOUND PROHIBITED 
(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N.S.) 

(Repealed 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 N.S.) ' . . 

» 

SEC. 59.5.0413 SIGNAL DEVICE FOR FOOD TRUCKS 

(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 1U22N.S.) 

(Repealed 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 N.S.) 

DIVISION 5 - PUBLIC NUISANCE NOISE 

(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N^.; Amended 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 NS. which 
changed UUe to PUBLIC NUISANCE NOISE - formerly GENERAL NOISE REGULATIONS.) 

SEC. 59.5.0501 GENERAL PROHIBITIONS 

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to make, continue, or cause to be made or continued, 
within the limits of said City, any disturbing, excessive, or offensive noise which causes discom¬ 
fort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. 

B. The characteristics and conditions which should be considered in determining whether 
a violation of the provisions of this section exists should include, but not be limited to the 
following: 

1. The level of the noise; 

2. Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual; 

5. Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural; 

4. The level of the background noise; 

5. The proximity of the noise to sleeping facilities; . 

- 6. The nature and zoning of the area from which the noise emanates; 

7. The time of day or night the noise occurs; 

8. The duration of the noise; and 

9. Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent, or constant. 

(Added 9-13-73 by Ord. 11122 N.S.) 

(Amended 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 NS.) 

SEC. 59.5.0502 DISTURBING, EXCESSIVE, OFFENSIVE NOISES - DECLARATION OF 
CERTAIN ACTS CONSTITUTING 

The following activities, among others, are declared to cause disturbing, excessive or offen¬ 
sive noises in violation of this section but said enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive, 
namely: 

A. Homs, Signaling Devices, etc. 

Unnecessary ustf or operation ot horns, signaling devices, etc., on automobiles, motorcycles, 
or any other vehicle. 

B. Radios. Television Sets, Phonographs. Loud Speaking Amplifiers and Similar Devices 

1. Uses Restricted 

The use, operation, or permitting to be played, used, or operated, any sound production 
or reproduction device, radio receiving set, musical instrument, drums, phonograph, television 
set, loud speakers and sound amplifiers or other machine or device for the producing or repro¬ 
ducing of sound in such a manner as to disturb the peace, quiet, and comfort of any reasonable 
person of normal sensitiveness. This provision shall not apply to any participant in a duly- 
licensed parade, or to any person who has been otherwise duly authorized by The City of San 
Diego to engage in such conduct. 

2. Prims Facie Violations 

The operation of any such set, instrument, phongraph, television set, machine, loud 
speakers or similar device between the hours of 10:09 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. in such a manner as 
to be plainly audible at a distance of Fifty (50) feet from the building, structure, or vehicle in 
which it is located, shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section. 

C. Yelling, Shouting, etc. 

Loud or raucous yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling or singing on the public streets be¬ 
tween the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., or at any time or place, is hereby prohibited. 


179-7 


H-8 








SEC. 59.5.0502 


12-76 


D. Animals 

1. The keeping or maintenance, or the permitting to be kept or maintained upon any 
premises owned, occupied, or controlled by any person of any animal or animals which by any 
frequent or long-continued noise, shall cause annoyance or discomfort to a reasonable person of 
normal sensitiveness in the vicinity. 

2. Prim a Facie Violations 

The noise of any such animal or animals that disturbs two (2) or more residents who are 
in general agreement as to the times and durations of the noise, and who reside in separate 
residences (including apartments and condominiums) located on property adjacent at any 
point to the property on which the subject animal or animals are kept or maintained shall be 
prima facie evidence of a violation of this section. 

E. Schools, Courts. Churches, Hospitals 

The creation of any noise in or adjacent to any school, institution of learning (except 
recreational areas of schools), church, court, or library without permission of the person in 
charge while the same arc in use; or adjacent to a hospital, rest home, or long-term medical 
or mental care facility which noise unreasonably interferes with the workings of such institu¬ 
tion or which disturbs or unduly annoys patients in the hospital, rest home, or long-term medi¬ 
cal or mental care facility, provided conspicuous signs are displayed in such streets, sidewalks, 
or public places indicating the presence of a school, institution of learning, church, court, li¬ 
brary, rest home, or long-term medical or mental care facility. 

F. Engines and Motor Vehicles 

Any unnecessary noises caused by screeching tires, racing, or accelerating the engine of any 
motor vehicle while moving or not moving, ar the wilfull backfiring of any engine and exhaust 
from the engine, tailpipe, or muffler. 

G. Playing of Radios on Buses 

The operation of any radio, phonograph, or tape player on an urban transit bus that ij 
audible to any other person in the bus is prohibited. 

(Sec. 59.5.0502 LOUD, UNUSUAL NOISES - DECLARATION OF CERTAIN ACTS 

CONSTITUTING - Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N.S.. Amended 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 
N.S.) 

SEC. 59.5.0503 BURGLAR ALARMS 

A. On or after one (1) year from the effective date of this article, no owner of a com¬ 
mercial property, dwelling, or motor vehicle shall have in operation an audible burglar alarm 
therein unless such burglar alarm shall be capable of terminating its operation within twenty 
(20) minutes of its being activated. 

B. Notwithstanding the requirements of this provision, any member of the Police Depart¬ 
ment of The City of San Diego shall have the right to take such steps as may be reasonable and 
necessary to disconnect any such alarm installed in any building, dwelling, or motor vehicle at 
any time during the period of its activation. On or after thirty (30) days from the effective date 
of this article, any building, dwelling or motor vehicle upon which a burglar alarm has been 
installed shall prominently display the telephone number at which communication may be 
made with the owner of such building, dwelling, or motor vehicle. 

(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N.S.) 

(Amended 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 SS.) 


DIVISION 6 - VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT 
(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N.S.) 

SEC. 59.5.0601 VIOLATIONS: MISDEMEANORS 

Any person violating any of the provisions of this article shall be deemed guilty of a 
misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in an amount not exceeding five 
hundred dollars ($500) or be imprisoned in the City or County jail for a period not exceeding 
six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each day such violation is committed 
or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such. 
(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N.S.) 

SEC. 59.5.0602 VIOLATIONS: ADDITIONAL REMEDIES: INJUNCTIONS 

As an additional remedy, the operation or maintenance of any activity, device, instrument, 
vehicle or machinery in violation of any provision of this article, which operation or mainte¬ 
nance causes discomfort or annoyance to reasonable persons of normal sensitiveness or which 
endangers the comfort, repose, health, or peace of residents in the area, shall be deemed, and 
is declared to be, a public nuisance, and may be subject to abatement summarily by a restrain¬ 
ing order or injunction issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. 

(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N.S.) 

(Amended 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 N.S.) 

SEC. 59.5.0603 ENFORCEMENT 

(Added 9-18-73 by Ord. 11122 N.S.) 

(Repealed 9-22-76 by Ord. 11916 Nis.) 


H-9 

















APPENDIX I 


Office of Noise Abatement and Control Newsletter 


1-1 



NOISE 


SAN DIEGO 

BUILDING INSPECTION DEPT. 
ABATEMENT AND CONTROL NEWSLETTER 


*wm - MB ' IH I VMIUHTHtWH I- sin- 

JAMES I. OUKCS FEBRUARY AND MARCH 1977 (71k) 236*5735 

Ben Olego Regional Al rport/land-Use Compat Ibl 11 tv Proposal 

The Community Hots* Equivalent level (CNEL) limits proposed In the Comprehensive Planning Organ! tat Ion's land-use compatibil¬ 
ity matrix are receiving close scrutiny by the advisory committee. The matrix similar to those previously published by HUD 
and CM establishes guidelines for San Olego regional planning In areas of high transportation noise. A CNEl exceeding 65 
decibels, for example. Is considered Incompatible with residential development, one of several broad land-use categories 

listed. 

Recognising that Individual projects within each listed general land-use category will vary with respect to noise exposure 
to people using the property, a project review tone of five to ten decibels, depending on the land-use cateoory. was added 
to the matrix. In effect, regional cities, the County and the Port Authority may consider projects Independent, of the 
Mtrtx on a case-by-case basis when they lie just over the line In the unacceptable zone. Reluctance was expressed to make 
the grey area too wide, thereby compromising the Integrity of the plan; on the other hand, too narrow a discretionary sene 
would obviate consideration of projects which are compatible with higher noise levels. 

An alternative to be considered at the next eoxmtttee meeting Is to eliminate the grey area from the plan. When projects ere 
proposed for Incompatibly high noise areas, an acoustical analysis report prepared by a recognized acoustician would be 
required. Approval of such projects would be contingent on the evidence presented In the report that persons using the 
developed property would not be exposed to unacceptable noise levels. 

A public hearing will be held by the Comprehensive Planning Organization Board of Executive Directors In the Silver Room of 
the Community Concourse on April 18, 1977, to hear comments prior to completing the plan. 

Constitutional Infringement? 

Mr,.Ronnie Colwell, street evangelist for the "lighthouse Church," after having been denied a permit by the Noise Abatement 
and Control Administrator to preach with a bull horn In Horton Plaza, appealed to the Board for Noise Abatement and Control. 

Mr. Colwell felt that the electrical amplification was necessary to be heard over the noise of downtown traffic. He stated 

further that denial of his use of voice amplification was an Infringement of his constitutional right of free soeech. The 
Board, after deliberating the Issue at Its January and February meetings, denied the aooeal, stating that the subject a-toll- 
VIcation would result In further Increases In the downtown noise, already excessively high. The Board made clear that this 
decision was not an Infringement on Mr. Colwell's rights In that he had not been prohibited from speaking, but only from 
speaking at a~'dlsturblngly high noise level. No other permits will be granted by the Noise Abatement and Control Office for 

'voice amplification In Horton Plaza. The Board did not rule on Mr. Colwell's request for a permit to use a bull horn on San 

Oiego streets. It did not consider this necessary because street noise Is not regulated by the Noise Abatement and Control 
Ordinance. Even so, amplIfIcatlon equipment may not be used In such a way as to cause a public disturbance. 

Lindbergh Field Noise Variance 

The City Council unanimously passed a resolution to act as Intervenor In the San Olego Port District vertance application to 
continue operating San Olego International Airport as a "noisy airport," pursuant to the Division of Aeronautics Regulations 
(CAC, Title k). 

The Deputy City Attorney representing the City of San Diego will be Mr. Curtis Fitzpatrick. Until the hearing, the City and 
the County will be coordinating preparation of their separate Intervention actions to present the facts as effectively as 
possible. 

The Port Authority has Indicated recently that some additional Information concerning Conmunlty Noise Equivalent level con¬ 
tours from 65 to 80 decibels may be possible to prepare. It Is hoped all areas of Interest defined In the resolution can 
be negotiated with the Port Authority prior to the hearing. Representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency In 
VaSiilngton, D.C. and San Francisco have expressed Interest In attending the variance application proceedings and appear to 
be synpathetlc with the City's and County's positions. 

Hawaii Calls (quietly) 

Through the Region IX EPA Office, the Citizens Against Noise (CAN) In Honolulu, Hawaii-, contacted our office concerning the 
exchange of Ideas and monthly newsletters. Citizens Agelnst Noise Is an Incorporated, nonprofit organization and not asso¬ 
ciated with eny public agency. It Is the largest group of Its kind known and the lergest citizens' group In the Hawellan 
Islands. For a $5.00 annual dues, members receive a well-written newsletter and free use of a sound level mater to evaluate 
VelTOnaI noise problems. For further Information, address Inquiries to Joan Hayes, 20S Merchant Street, Room 18, Honolulu,' 
Hawaii, 96813 or telephone (808) 537-3590. 


for Infoneetlon concerning the San Olego City Noise Abatement end Control Program, address Inquiries to; 

| NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL OFFICE 

1222 First Avenue, San Diego. California 92101 SUBSCRIPTION RATE: $5.00 per year 


1-2 














APPENDIX J 


Office of Noise Abatement and Control 
List of Approved Acousticians 


J-l 


12 



SAN DIEGO 

BUILDING INSPECTION DEPT. 

NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL NEWSLETTER 


The following companies are listed with the San Diego City Noise Abatement and Control 
office as qualified to prepare acoustical analysis reports pursuant to the California 
Noise Insulation Standards (CAC, Title 25.) Acousticians wishing to be listed with this 
•office should mail a letter of request, resumes for all acousticians on staff and a job 
experience list. Please allow two weeks for review and processing. 

San Diego Area Firms Firms In Other Areas 


ROBERT S. GALES 
1645 Los Altos Road 
San Diego, CA 92109 
274-6204 

PARRY NOISE CONSULTING 
2420 University Avenue 
San Diego, CA 92104 
296-3323 

AURELIO G. PELLINO 
4374 Mt. La Platta Drive 
San Diego, CA 92117 
277-0164 

SAN DIEGO ACOUSTICS 
111 Elm Street 
San Diego, CA 92101 
231-8986 

VESTEC SERVICES, INC. 
•1520 State Street 
San Diego, CA 92101 
233-7572 

ROBERT V. YOUNG, PH.D. 
1696 Los Altos Road 
'San Diego, CA 92109 
,273-8732 

# 

G. V. CURTIS 



BOLT, BERANEK AND NEWMAN, INC. 
21120 Vanowen Street 
Canoga Park, CA 91313 
(213) 347-8360 

0B ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Box 90882 Worldway Center 
Los Angeles, CA 90009 
(213) 641-4500 776-4222 

KENWARD S. 0LIPHANT 
657 Howard Street 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
(415) 421-1164 

J. J. VAN H0UTEN 
1585 Mel Is Lane 
Anaheim, CA 92802 
(714 j635-9520 . 

PAUL S. VENEKLASEN t ASSOCIATES 
1711 16th Street 
Santa Monica, CA 90404 
(213) 393-3703 870-9268 

VYLE LABORATORIES 
128 Maryland 
El Segundo, CA 90245 
(213) 678-4251 


J-2 







APPENDIX K 


Noise Impact Analysis Report on Proposed Road Improvements 


I 


K-l 


1712 


FILE NO. i 
DATE » 

TO i 

FROM t 

SUajECTi 


CITY of SAN DIEGO 

MEMORANDUM 


October 25, 1977 

Transportation Department Director 
Building inspection Department Director 

Acoustical Analysis of the Proposed improvement to Pomerado Road Between 
Stone Canyon Road and Avenida la Valencia 


Project Description 

This project entails the widening from two to four lanes and realignment of a 0.61 
mile portion of Pomerado Road from Stone Canyon Road to 500 ft. south of Avenida la 
Valencia. The current speed limit is thirty-five miles per hour but is expected to 
be increased to fifty-five miles per hour by 1995- The current traffic load is 
8,200 vehicles per year ( 2 % trucks) and is forecasted by the City Transportation 
Department to increase to 24,500 vehicles per year by 1995- Hourly vehicle trips 
are shown in Attachments Aj and A£. 

Site Selection and Acoustical Analysis Technique 

Two test sites were selected for,96 hours of continuous time average sound level 
monitoring, utilizing an ANSI Type II Digital Acoustics and a Type I Computer 
Engineering Limited Average Sound Level Meters (see Attachment D). Additionally 
a one hour traffic mix vehicle count was conducted at both sites, during which 
time the time averaged, A-weighted sound level was measured. 

The two one hour surveys were used to determine the ratio of the "average" vehicle 
on Pomerado Road to HNL, and to verify the spreading characteristics of the 
roadway noise (i.e. spherical, columnar, or combination). The sound level reduction 
over distance for time integrated measurements proved to be columnar or proportional 
from 50 ft. to 750 ft. from Pomerado Road as demonstrated on graph F. The sites 
were located 500 ft. south of Avenida la Valencia, and 650 ft. north of Stone Canyon 
Road at 19 ft. and 50 ft. respectively from the center of the eastern most Pomerado 
lane. Measurement sites are identified on Attachment H. Attachment C contains a 
histogram of the one hour average A-weighted sound levels (HNL) at site one. The 
highest HNL measured occurred during peak hour traffic, from 4 p.m. until 5 p.m. 
and was utilized for a "worst case" site noise evaluation. 

The breakdown of vehicles by axle number is contained on Attachment B. The measured 
HNL at 100 ft. was 62.1 dB from 1315 hours to 1415 hours. A comparison of Single 
Event Noise Exposure Levels (SENEL) for each of the vehicle types counted by the 
Noise Abatement and Control Office during earlier studies (ref. Attachment C) is 
in close agreement with the observed ratio of mixed vehicles to the HNL observed 
on Pomerado Road. This confirmed relationship is shown on Attachment E. Dr?ve-by 
speeds of two and three axle vehicles from thirty-five miles per hour to fifty 
miles per hour have not resulted in a significant increase in the Single Event Noise 
Exposure Level except where the vehicles were equipped with tires of especially 
noisy tread design. In these cases as with four and five axle vehicles, the Single 


K-2 





Transportation Department Director 
Page 2 

October 25, 1977 


Event Noise Exposure Level increased between one and five decibels at fifty-five 
miles per hour over the sound level measured at thirty-five miles per hour. Because 
of the small percentage of truck traffic and vehicles equipped with noisy tread, 
the resultant increase in SENEL did not warrant applying correction factors to the 
model. 

The assumption was made that the Transportation Department estimated increase ip 
current average daily trips from 8,200 to 24,500 by the year 1995 wou’d not affect 
the distribution of traffic on an hour by hour basis throughout a twenty-four day. 

Test Procedures 


The Single Event Noise Exposure Levels were measured during standard barometric 
and temperature conditions on two, four and six lane roadways. The microphone 
is generally 100 ft. back from the center of the right hand lane, approximately 
four ft. above the road bed surface. Care is taken not to conduct tests within 
200 ft. from reflecting surfaces, intersections or bends in the road. Tests are 
not conducted on grades greater than 4%. Vehicles speeds are timed as the vehicle 
passes between two markers 200 ft. apart. These tests are ongoing in the City of 
San Diego and are expected to be incorporated into the San Diego Regional Ground 
Transportation Noise Land Use Planning Map. All equipment was calibrated with 
appropriate calibration sources Ci.e. ANSI Type II, 114 decibels, 1000 herz). 

Conclusions 


The current and forecasted 1995 peak hourly noise level versus distance from the 
center of the right hand lane of Pomerado Road are depicted on the Attachment F 
graph. Terrain is generally flat and rolling consequently additional absorption 
and reflection calculations were not included in this report. A slight indentation 
will be noted in the northern section of the 65 dB, HNL isogram caused by the 
presence of a minor elevation change. This was detected during spot L e g measurements 
of ten minute durations. Residential development at the northern end of the pro¬ 
posed project are currently exposed to peak- hourly noise levels greater than 60 
decibels and will be exposed to higher levels as traffic loads increase on the 
roadway. The 1995 HNL contours can be derived from Attachment F. 

Impacts 

As a consequence of current Pomerado Road traffic noise, fifteen residences and 
a church are currently exposed to peak hour HNL greater than 60 dB. By 1995 the 
increased traffic load will cause six additional residences to be so exposed. 

Twelve residences are currently exposed to levels greater than 65 dB, and by 1995, 
will be exposed to levels exceeding 70 dB. The church, and two more residences 
will be exposed to levels greater than 65 dB. 

This statement is true for those buildings in direct line of sight of the traffic. 
Measurements have not been conducted at all of the residences. 

Mitiqation 

Utilizing a City of San Diego developed and tested program for L e q octave band 
barrier attenuation (Attachment G), it was determined that a solid construction 


K-3 






Transportation Department Director 
Page 3 

October 25, 1977 


masonry wall with a height greater than eleven ft. and positioned between the 
roadway and sidewalk easement would mitigate the impact to a level below 60 
decibels, HNL. While it is recognized that more restrictive Federal and State 
Regulation of the automotive and the tire manufacturing industries may result 
in a decrease in pass-by sound levels, it is not felt by this office that such 
measures will adequately mitigate noise impact at the location in question to 
achieve compatibility with the subject residential land use. 

Numerous complaints have been filed with this office concerning high traffic 
noise levels. 


G. W. CURTiS 

BUfLDtNG INSPECTION DIRECTOR 



JAMES E. DUKES 
ADMINISTRATOR 


np 


Attachments 





VtHICLt VOLUME SUMMAHV - MACHINE COUNT 
Uf SAN OlbCU TMAEFIC ENGInEEHINC SEC T ION 


A * 



! 

i 


i 


• 



i 

i 


i 

1 



• 



• 




i 



i 


• 









• 





K 

• 


t 




mi 










O 









O 









o 





k 







< 







1 



© 























1 

















♦ 









♦ 









» 





♦ 







3 










• 









• 









• 





AA 

a 


MM 


— mm 

k 


mm 

■m 

—* 

a 

AN 

•A 

AA 

AA 

o 









n 














OJ 

X 

O 

© 

o 

e 

a 



o 

© 

c 

o 

e 

© 

© 

o 


© 

o 

o 

© 

© 

o 

o 

o 



o o 

O 

o 

a 

o 

o © 


© 

© 

a 

rnm 

3 

♦ 


9 

o 

N. 

O 


mm 

o 

mm 

n 

in 

mm 

© 

o 


n 

♦ 

0 

© 

0 


© 

a 



04 

4 

© 

in 


o 

k k 


AA 

© 



O 


♦ 

n 

mm 


* 





« 


♦ 

Oj 

-A 




04 

♦ 


n 

AA 






OJ 

m 

* 

■n 

mm 





n 

o 

r 

























n 









■J) 





z 

mm 






1 










X 









X 











w 

w W 


















3 









3 









3 





U4 

• 

© 

© 

© 

O 

D 

> 


o 

o 

t> 

o 

© 

© 

O 

o 

O 

o 

© 

o 

o 

c 

o 

© 

o 

o 


0 

0 

o 

o 

a 

o 

0 0 3 


o 

O 

a 

mi 

• 

o 

*■ 

b 

♦ 


< 



04 

mm 

c 


o 

■n 

AA 

z 


04 

k 

o 

B 

o 

04 

04 

I 




k 

k 

>- 

® 

n oj z 



OJ 

a 


• 

AA 

•* 




p 




mm 

mm 


AA 







AA 


aA 

















u. 

</» 
















♦ 







1 

















O 






J 










04 


















04 



o 



5 

o 

o 

© 

o o 

< 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 



o o 

o 

o 

a 

o 

o © 


o 

> 



9 

AA 

9 

♦ 

d 

— 



Pd 

o 

04 

— 

> 

«n 

m 

1 

AA 

mm 

X 

04 

> 

k 

o 

n 

1 




B 

- 

► 

k 

n - i 



OJ 

> 


-z 


AA 








mm 

-A 

— 








AA 




















d4 






X 










mi 









-i 















z 






< 










< 









< 









< 



o 




p 

© 

o 

o 

9 

a 


o 

© 

o 

o 

o 

© 

o 

© 

k 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

k 


o « 

3 

U 

o 

a 

o 

O O k 


o 

a 


z 

(V 

o 

o 

© 

H 



■— 

«• 

o 

-A 

•• 

-• 

dJ 

■n 

3 

»■ 

AA 

m 

04 

» 

k 

• 

04 

o 


— 


N. 

— 

0 

X 

© . 

4 O 



04 

a 



-• 

AA 

•a 







•m 

-A 

-• 

rnm 



k 




AA 





«- 





OJ 




»• 




«• 

-* 

s 


* 





































n 

1 







































•/> 

n 

o 

© 

o 

o 

a 



o 

© 

o 

© 

o 

o 

O 

o 

* * 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

© 

© 

o 



o . 

5 

o 

o 

3 

© 

o © 


o 

o 

> 


«• 

m 

— 

04 

o 

d 




— 

o 

o 

pg 

•A 

o 

*n 


AA 


<0 

AA 

AA 

o 

*1 

aA 





♦ 

© 

N» 

k 

© 

4 


mm 




• 







































< 











































• 















• 






















in 

i 


! 

i 





! 

i 



1 

1 



! 



i 

! 

! 



j 



! 

i 













m 


«A 


x 

o 

o 

o 

c 

D 



c 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

© 

c 

o 

o 

c 

© 



o © 

o 

o 

a 

o 

© © 


O 

o 

a 


5 

<t 

n 

# 

© U 



n 

N 

in 


•n 

K 

x> 

B 


© 

04 

N» 

«• 

9 

9 

> 

04 



© Oj 


B 

© 


© 


OJ 

04 04 

Z* 

? 

* 

f 

* 

fd 

- 





«■ 

i 

# 

♦ 

• 

04 


I 

i 


** 

«r 

1 


n 

04 

j 

** 





•* 

n 

n 

0J 


A 




n 

2 

a* 

— 


w 


•m 











1 











*• 

A 








AA 

AA 

«A 

3 

• 

o 

o 

o 

© 

O 



o 

O 

o 

o 

© 

o 

o 

O 


c 

O 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 



O < 

3 

o 

o 

a 

o 

© © 


o 

o 

a 

Z 

,• 

■*> 

© 

o 

•n 

n 



mm 

— 

o 

04 

-• 

n 

C 

A 


04 


in 

9 

9 

> 

© 

r> 



mm 



© 

>A 

B 

© 

0 



AA 

o 


• 

•A 

i 

— 








•A 

mm 

mm 




| 













mm 







' 

- 

or 

r» 







































mm 

p 
















1 























o 

3 

o 

© 

© 

o 




O 

© 

© 

o 

o 

© 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

O 

O 

© 

o 

o 



© 

D 

© 

© 

> 

© 

© ■ 

a 


o 

O 

3 


mm 

o 

•• 

o 

© 







14 

•> 

04 

o 

04 


AA 

mm 

aO 

*— 

aA 

aA 

o 

OJ 






o 

o 

k 

k 





I 


T 


mm 











— 



| 




•A 

A 

•A 




















i 








1 






1 




1 



1 

















X 

© 

© 

c 

o 

© 



O 

© 

o 

O 

c 

O 

© 

O 


c 

© 

© 

o 

o 

© 

i 

c 



o 


© 

o 

a 

c 

o 

> 


o 

o 

o 


z 


•• 

mm 

k 

1 



•M 

mm 

■n 

04 

© 

rnm 

ii 

•*> 


AA 

AA 


AA 

> 

© 

© 

<t 



OJ 


04 

9 

> 

k 

© < 

J 




r* 


AA 


rnm 

mm 




I 



•— 



mm 







•A 




















X 


s 















i 



i 



1 


















© 

© 

© 

© 

© 



© 

o 

c» 

O 

o 

o 

o 

c 


© 

o 

c 

o 

© 

o 

© 

o 



o 


o 

a 

a 

o 

o 

a 


© 

o © 


mm 

3* 

04 

m 

K. 

>0 



-A 


® 

04 


mm 

o 

04 


AA 



n 

o 

© 


n 



AA 


04 

9 

M 

k 

© 

0 


aA 


a 


m 

m 


[ 





i 



i 

! 



i 



i 

i 

o 



• 



















■ 


> 







] 






! 










1 

































i ^ 




i 



1 







• 










i 


I 














j - 

( 



i 



1 











# 







A» 

mm 

mm 


k 




mm 



«• 

1a 

AA 

AA 



AA 

AA 


AA 



« 



-A 

*» 


A. 


«. 


A 


AA 

-A 

»A 


X 


c 

o 

o 

> 



o 

c 

© 

O 

© 

c 

C 

c 

-A 

o 

o 

c 

o 

o 

o 

c 

o 



o 

D 

o 

#_* 

a 

o 

o 

> 


© 

© 

3 


3 


cf 

k 

■n m 



d) 

mm 



o 

o 


© 

K. 

c 

•A 

-A 

k 

n 

0 

fA 

n 



© 

4 

in 

J 

< 

CD 

•n 

f 



— 

> 


3 


•* 

* 


k 





04 



♦ 


— 





n 


n 

n 

*• 







» 

OJ 

OJ 

M 




N 


















c» 









O 






















1 



1 






c 




i 





c 














mm. 

• 

© 

o 

© 

o 

3 



© 

o 

o 

© 

o 

c 

o 

o 

k 

O 

c 

© 

o 

o 

© 

o 

© 

04 


o 


o 

c 

3 

© 

o 

-> 


o 

o 

a 

n 

« 

mm 

— 

mm 

K 04 



mm 


B 

n 

04 

— 


fO 


04 


■J 

o 

> 

c 

o 

*n 

mm 




— 

a oj 

k 

.0 





o 

X 

• 

mm 


mm 








mm 

mm 

M- 




} 



AA 










— 









z 

«n 







in 






1 



n o 

• 








Xi 









•n 

© 




• 

Q 
















<t 1 



















AA 




a 

O 

c 

© 

c 

O 

a 


© 

© 

o 

o 

o 

o 

c 

c 

o 

O <t 

© 

c 

© 

o 

o 

c 

c 

c 

c 

►0 

© 1 

: 

o 

o 

3 

o 

o 

a - 


c 

© 

a 

a 

— 

Cm 

04 

fA 

® 

♦ 


mm 


— 

c 

•• 

Oj 

m 

© 

Oj 

AA — 



»n 

c 

04 

© 

k 


— 


04 


04 

C 04 

© 

© <n - 

— 

AA 


o 


X 

mm 

mm 

— 







mm 

mm 

— 

-A 







AA 

-A 

AA 
















- 

•A 

JJ 







— 









k *- 










- 









»- 




O 

X 







« 









< < 









< 

>1 








< 

< 




mm 



c 

o 

c 

a 



o 

o 

© 

c 

© 

C‘ 

u 

O 


© 

c 

o 

c. 

© 

C 

c 

c- 



© 

: 

O 

c o 

© 

o 

_• 


© 

o 

a 

a 

z 


Oj 

04 

© 

1 


o 

04 


o 

© 

— 

mm 

X 

<f 

o o 

fv 

AA 

*o 

c- 

04 

Xj 

© 

n 

s 

3 



AA 


1 

B 

© 

i J 

o 

AA 


© 

mm 

mm 


r 

aa 




z 





mm 

rnm 



z z 

l 



AA 

mm 




z 

z 








2 

z 





t 


























»— 














« 
















o o 









o 









Q 

3 



| 


r> 


t 

O 

c 

J 


2 

u 

c 

© 

c- 

o 

c 

« * 

C 

z z 

© 


© 

c 

<_ 

V 

© 

Ca 

z 

z 

c 

> 

© 

o 


O 

c 

- • Z 

Z 

C 

o 

u 


-A 



•a 


i 


uJ 

ry 


o 

c- 

•A 

— 

c 


JJ J 

04 


— 

k 

*4 

o 

5) 

•t 

J k 

OJ 

PA 

AA 

© c 

k 

o 

If «J 

•J 

AA 

AA 

w7 


A 



mm 

■4 







-A 

A 

mm 

•A 







— 

-A 









AA 









.# 







© 









o © 

1 






i 


© 

3 








r- 

o 




3 








9 









o k 









iP 

n 








3 

© 




•X 








•* 









<r t 









* 









n 





“1 

x • 

c 

© 

o 

o 

L 



C 

c 

c- 

e 

© 

c 

c 

© 


C 

o 

o 

© 

O 

C 

t 

© 



o 

t/ 

© 

tj 

C. 

© 

C: 

D 


© 

c 

r 

3 


© 

4- 

c 

o 

. 


•1 

c 

t 

< 

c 

c 

u 

<- 

c 

M II 

c 

c 

< 

c 


c 

*. 

<- 

I' 

i 

o 

3 

© 

c 

> 

Cl 

r 

r ii 

•• 

c 

c 

L 

< 

c 

9 

Oj 

m 

t 



X 

© 

fO 

o 


M 

o 

X 

—• 

a c 

t 

* 

J 

© 

04 

A • 

x 

-A 

s 

s 

& 



3 

A 

m 

B 

■A ^ 

V 

© 

r> 

© 


«j 

e 

AA 

— 

— 04 


3 

'i 

© 

1 • 

© 

AA 

mm 

AA 

14 

3 3 

f 

c 

• ; 

r 

•A 

-A 

AA 

4 

3 

3 

© 

■ 

c 

i 


AA 

- 04 3 

3 

r 

c 

© 

T 








3 



















■* 








“ 

n 







1 





X 









Z X 



















Z 




*3 

i 

3 

| 






— 








i 

k 










z 









z 



G. 

• 







Si 1 

X 








Si Z 

< 






1 


d: 


3 









! 3 





k 

| 





< 

k 








< < 

vT 








< 

n 

•n 







< 

< 

I 



•• 








U i 









kJ 'X' 









■jt 

a 








Ul 

uj 




z 


k 






X 

N 








a x 

k 








e. 

i 

k 







a 

a 

K. 



3 


v 









i 






i 

•a 










k 









k 





i 

( 





T 

• 








7 I 

1 








▼ 

"• 

i 







▼ 

T 

1 



k 


mm 






a , 

>J 








«t 1 

■n 



I 



1 


< 

i- 

•t 




, 



< 

X 

/» 



< 

i 

— 







”* 








1 




i 



1 




— 









— 




i 

r? 

1 






T 


, 



f 










1 




D 









«* 



ml 

! 

i 

© 

! 

i 

i 





i 

i 

i 

C 


i 

i 






j 

i 




) 

i 



1 

J 




O 




1 





t 

1 


1 


K-5 



























































n 

m 


< 

>- 

a 


1 


§ 

o 

r 


a 

s 


z 

i 


: a 

j§ 

! 3: 

I UJ 

! x 

! o 


z i 

3 


-J 

« 


o © COO 
^ ® - 4 Mj 
♦ # 'fl 4 


9 

4 ? 

«»**»«««o 

oooooooc 

m 9 9 *i f j — 


© 

A 


f o 
n oj 


© © o © © o 

A ® D 1 N o *> 

— # fO ♦ 0 . — 


! O 
* 

o © o © c c 

0-0 0 N O ® 


I <• • — — 

o o o 

* ♦ 


i t - 


z 


l 


o 






X 

o 



5 

© 

z o 



n 

3 OJ 

X 

£ 


O A 

►- 



u 

3 



•3 

3 

• 

o 

tu z 

J) 

• 

c 

Z - 


• 

— 

- a 

X 

Ui 


r w 


3 


<J UJ 

3 

3 

o 

< z 


« 

© 

X - 


X 


<3 


UJ 


• z 


X 


UJ 


1 

o 

> 


z 

o 

X 1 J 




< — 

X u. 


X 

1 


X u. 


Iff) 

o 

3 < 


«■ 

o 

A X 


* 

•• 



*• 


Ui 

X o 

3 O 


1 


i 4 '■“ 






1 


1 * ° 


! 

—» 


j ui Z 


X 


1 J < 

1 O A 


3 

2 




t 


! r ^ 




; UJ 3 




: > 


• 

o 


3 


© 

*- 

N 

• 


- 

Z 



! <-> 

i 

3 

c 


X 


o 



X 



to 

UJ 



C 

«. 







a 

? 


1 

~ 

i- 

X 

1 



I I 

! ri 


© © C O 
8 n i/i s 
♦ O (M *• 


o © 

•A in 


© o o © 
* a n ♦ 


o c 
K SI 


c c o © 

r» a g a 


< o O O 

r ^ o 

|» in ■*) n 


t c o c 
r n c a 

f" "; 

C o o U 

• — o r» 

i t 

! I 

c o c © c 
o c c © c 
C* M A <C — 
c f- - — w 


3 

r 


c 

z 

o 

z 

u 


•I I 

X 1 

§! 

X . 


ceooocco 
n - - - ♦ c ivj t 
* ♦ A n — 


Jotooooo 

© — CO — © * T> 
- f ♦ iff «i - 

’ 


© c 

■A — >- 

5 

~ — o 

© 


o c © o c o 
*> M m ** * (v 
— * n n oj — 


o © o 
04 — © 


© 

o 

© 

© 

o 

c 1 

© 

© 

o 

© 

o 

© 

o 

•9 

o 

© 

u 

o 

o 

© 

o 

C 

e 

o e 

o ! 

© 

-* 

o 

D 

K 

♦ 

r 


♦ 

c 

— 

OJ 

0 

* 

>• 


X 

OJ 

D* 

© 

© 

K 


— — 



•• 

«• 

«« 






t* 


•• 




i 




• 




i 

i 




j 









1 




X 


i 













i 






1 




<U 








> 

1 

© 

a 

© 

O 

© 

c 

© 

o 

© 

© 

o 

o 

© 

o 

o 

© 3 

c 

© 

© 

© 

o 

o 

© e 

© 


o 

m 

© 

D 

n 

r 


M 

o 

© 

n 

o. 

9 




9 



© 

© 

sn 

I 

si ! 







i 



•• 







71 




•« 



1 

I 

1 



i 


i 

i 



1 



1 




z 


j 





; 

i 

! 





i 

l 



1 






' 

3 









© 

© 

© 

© 

O 

© ! 

o 

c- 

© 

6 

c 

o 

©• 

O 

o 

© 

UJ 

© 

r 

© 

o 

o 

© 

© © 

© f 

9 

o 

o 

© 


u 

N 

—• 

rj 

o 

01 



9 

0« 



u> 

• 

o 

9 

SI 

m 

mm 

9 ! 






i 




*• 

•* 

*" 

1 




• 


•• 



] 


| 





1 

- 

} 

i 



i 









i 





1 

♦ 

1 

© 

o 

© 

© 

o 

? , 

© 

o 

© 

c 

© 

o 

© 

O 

o 

© 

z 

C 

o 

o 

O 

© 

o 

0 

0 

o 


© © 
OJ — 


j © © 


I 

c o o o o c c 

A - © *n Dp* 
•• m * b n 


ocoooooc 

— — ♦OOjGC''' 


© © o © o o 
— fu © © © 


%M © © 

r 


© © 


o 

X 


ru — o ® O n 


o o c c o 

A 04 04 — « 


u C O O O C' C 

(>J N N M O t 


I ^ 


o e 
c c 
© n 
© c 


r 

t c o o o o 

© © © c c c 

c D n n c - 

o C — ~ - 'V 


U I 

X ! 


f >* 




L 


* 



«» 




i 




c 

c 


© 

o 

c 

© 

o 



o 



c 

mm 

A 

A 

0 


* 

M 



N. 







«* 

y 

34 

n 


j 


i 












mm 

1 


© 

Cl 

Ui 

© 

o 

o 

i 

o 


i 

o 





OJ 

© 

n 

o 

A 



i 

<M 



I 











© 

C 









o 

o 


© 

o 

t 








•J 

© 


N 


© 

c 

c 

c 

c 

o 

© 

o 

*u 


O 

mm 

«• 

fl 


mm 

im 

c 

•* 

* 

n 

—• 

mm 

mrn 

, 






«« 



mm 




*- 





1 



• 



*- 


« 

< 




1 



1 


< 

< 




c 

©• 

c 

© 

© 

o c 

o 



O 


o 

fu 



G 

— 

© 


A 

o 

© 

fU 

z 

z 





mm 

mm 



z 

z 










■ 





2 

3 

1 



! 





Q 

0 


Z 

z 

o 

O 

W 

C 

o 

o 

<> 

o 

z 

z 

O 

aJ 

ml 

n 


— 

J 

OJ 

— 

> 

9 

ml 

ml 

fi 














© 

© 









c 

© 


r 

o 




i 





* 

i 


♦ 

© 









♦ 

A 


i 


o 

© 

© 

© 

o 

C’ 

© 

© 



o 

H 

H 

c 

© 

f. 

< 

o 

c 

C 

c 

it 

n 

© 

i 

X 

c 

n 

o 


<\k 

a r 

— 

X 

a 

c 

3 

3 

© 

o 

1' 

© 

— 

«• 

•» 

“V 

3 

3 

© 

E 

3 




| 



! 



n 

r 




► 



I 







z 

X 

it 

< 






i 


X 

X 

3 

< 

< 

IT 






• 


< 

< 

n 

u 

■j 









1-J 

%1 


& 

a 

K 








X 

0. 




K 






• 




•m. 

r 

y 

1 



i 



i 


X 

X 

1 

< 

X 

r 








< 

0- 

9 




© 

n 


' 3 
— VJ 


* C G 

r <n 




A © C O © O C 

Z *. © * ^ C *** 

a 

u 


I 

©ueb 
- * © 

3 I 

* i 

© X C O 

u — © 


o o 6 o 
k * © *n 


o o © o 
— © * •» 


c © 
c — 

oi © 


o © 
z z 


© © © 
ff* — 04 


O O O 
— — A 


© © © 

— * 


o © o © c o 

- SO C O C <* 


I 

c o © © © c 
c c c o c © 

e © — — — o» 


o © 
© r 
♦ f> 


i 


* 

< 

1 

X 

* 

t 


o © c o > 

N < O © i 


o © C o J 

m | — ** ; 


© © © © 
© © c c> 
© f» -o > 
© © c © 


z 

c 

X 


A 

I 

© 

© 


•• 

e 



[ 





i 








«A 

? 








A 








A • 





►- • 






1 









X 









X 








X 


mm 

N» W 

i 

z 







• 


! 






3 









3 








3 





3 

O 

© 


O 

© 

> 

© 

c 

© 

o 

o 

© 

O 

O 

3 

© 

© 

o 

c 

O 

o 

© 

o 

O 

o © 

© 

o 

o 

c 

© 

o 

□ • 

c 

© 

© 

> 

O 

04 

04 

o 

A 

0J 

< 

-• 

-* 

© 

n 



K 

n 

r 

•a 


A 

04 

© 

9 

♦ 

* 

X 

mm 


04 


© 

9 

mm 

X 



mm 

« 

U 

•• 

•• 

•• 



3 




mm 

«• 

-• 







«• 



1 



• 


mm 

a* 

rnm 







3 










i 



| 



♦ 







1 


9 






i 


* 




i 

> ! 






-J 









N 

1 








04 








04 




al 

« 

O 

© 

© 

O 

© 

< 

o 

u 

© 

o 

o 

© 

O 

© 


© 

o 

c 

© 

o 

Ci 

© 

c 


o © 

o 

o 

© 

O 

© 

o 


o 

© 

© 

< 

O 

mm 


♦ 

c 

04 


, 


© 

m 

n 

9 

IA 

9 

» 

mm 

— 

9 

m 

-• 

o 

A 

0J 

1 


o 

04 

o 

* 

A 

r> 

1 



<y 


Z . 

mm 

«• 

mm 







mm 

mm 

mm 







mm 

•a 

—• 



• 



«• 

mm 









UJ 



, 



X 









J 









-J 

• 







3 




X 

U 






< 

» 








« 









« 








< 




< 

■ i 

o 

© 

c 

c 

© 

a 

o 

© 

© 

o 

o 

© 

© 

O 

fc- 

O 

c 

© 

© 

C 

© 

o 

o 

*• 

o © 

o 

O 

o 

o 

© 

o 

►- 

© 

© 

o 

a 


«• 

OU 

s 

G 

«• 


mm 

■« 

►. 

04 

o 

9 

K 

X 

3 


a* 


♦ 

mrn 

04 

A 

9 

3 

mm 

n 

n 

* 

<y 

© 

a* 

3 1 



G 


U4 

•* 

** 







1 

*• 

«• 

90 



*" 




*• 

mm 

•• 



t- 








ha • 


! 



O • 









1 






j 

• 



1 



! 


I 



t 










X 

o 

o 

G 

o 

o 


O 

o 

© 

© 

o 

C 

C 

o 


© 

c 

O 

O 

O 

© 

© 

© 


o c 

© 

o 

O 

o 

© 

o 


o 

© 

o 

i 

4i • 

O 


o 

p» 

OJ 




* 

•• 

-• 

G 

K 

♦ 


mm 


<v 

•• 

*> 

mm 

© 

n 

I 

«• 

04 


N. 

o 

A 

n 

1 



G 


> 

-• 

*• 

0J 








- 

*• 



l 




•• 



i 


• 





•• 



i 





•« i 


jj 

■3 

< 

a 


K-6 














































CITY OF SAN DIEGO ' 

NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL OFFICE 

Vehicle Count by Axle Class 

Project: Pomerado Road Alignment and 

Widening Between Stone Canyon 
Road and Avenida la Valencia 



Date: February 16, 1977 T 

‘me: As Indicated 

2-AXLE 

SEL 

3-AXLE 

SEL 

4-AXLE 

SEL 

5-AXLE 

SEL 

MOTORCYCLE 

SEL 

528 NA 

1 1 NA 

5 NA 

None NA 

3 NA 


Total vehicle count: 
L eq during survey: 
Duration of survey: 
Average HNL/vehicle: 
% Trucks: 


617 

62 dB (A-weighted) 

1 hour, 1315 to 1415 hours 

34.1 dB 

3-2 


NOISE IMPACT SENSITIVE LAND USE 


No. of 
Buildings 


Building 

Use 


Distance from 
Center, Right 
Hand Lane (ft) 


Current 
Exposure 
HNL (dB) 


1995 

Predicted Exposure 
HNL (dB) 


2 

Residence 

40 

66.08 

71.08 

2 

II 

75 

63.35 

68.35 

10 

II 

50 

65.11 

70.11 

2 

II 

250 

58.98 

63.98 

1 

tl 

210 

58.88 

63-88 

1 

II 

240 

58.30 

63-30 

2 

II 

280 

57.63 

62.63 

1 

Church 

160 

60.06 

65.06 


K-7 













CITY OF SAN DIEGO 

NOISE ABATEMENT AT© CONTROL OFFICE 


ATTACHMENT Q 


Sound Exposure Level (SEL) by Axle Class 
at 25 Ft. from center of Beardsley Street 

Project: Lovell Elementary School 
1130 Beardsley Street 


_ Date: February 16, 1977 Time: As Indicated _ 

2-AXLE 3-AXLE ' 4-AXLE 5-AXLE *OTHER 

H M S SEL H M S . SEL H M S SEL • HMS SEL H M S - SEL 


083654 

77 .O dB 102613 

87 .O dB 090814 

86.5 dB 

102743 89.4 dB - 084705 

81.5 dB 

083929 

77.0 dB- 

091929 

90.4 dB 

102624 90.7 dB 


084440 

77*0 dB 

094351 

80.4 dB 

104812 89.6 dB 090.346 

74.0 dB 

084376 

74.7 dB 

094729 

87.4 dB 



090804 

77*5 dB 

095354 

91.5 dB 

09533> 

84.0 d B‘ 

093936 

77*0 dB 

102359 

87.7 dB 



094233 

79*0 dB 

• 






88.45 

dB Average 

89.94 dB Average 8l,44 dB Average 

094337 

77*0 dB 



“ 

095156 

84.3 dB 





095226 

81.3 dB 





095605 

80.5 dB 





100157 

77*0 d B 





100458 

72.2 dB 





100919 

80.0 dB 

H - 

HOUR 



102830 

74.0 d B 

M - 

MINUTE 





S - 

SECOND 



105015 

77*0 d B 

dB - 

DECIBELS 



104055 

80.0 dB 





1041-05 

82.0 dB 






79-08 dB Average (2 axle) *OTHER: Dual Axle 

81.44 dB Average (other) 

79*35 dB Average (2 axle and other) 


K-8 












LU < 

z 2 

O Q 



of Pomerado Rd. 















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































46 5493 



K-10 


Hourly vehicle trips for Pomerado Rd. between Stone Canyon Rd. and Avenida la Valencia 



















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































46 5493 



K-ll 


Distance from center of right hand lane (ft) 
































































































































































































































































































































































































































































CITY OF SAN OIECO NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL OFFICE 1-| 

FORTRAN IV IBM 370 COMPUTER PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 
FOR ACOUSTICAL BARRIER ATTENUATION (BAfT) 

The program will calculate the attenuation of sound In each of nine octave bands from • specified source to a series of 
receiver locations, using the Inverse '--law, atmospheric attenuation, and barrier attenuation. 

The program loglc^ Is written to first read In the data cards; then calculate the path length difference between the dir 
path for each of nine frequencies, using the equation: 

■Yy^ + (X-Z ) 2 ’ + ul 

r J 


ect and.the diffracted 

'(x4)2 


OEL 


•[ 


yw* 


>Vc= 


u 


y)‘ 




where W - distance tn feet from source to edge of barrier 
X ■ height of barrier In feet 

■ E + H, combined height In feet of ground elevation (E). 
and source height (H) 

Y ■ distance In feet from edge of barrier to receiver 
Z ■ height In feet of receiver 
U ■ width of barrier In feet 


j£j 



Figure l. 


r— y — 

Next, the program calculates the attenuation of parameter T, which Is a function of the path length and wave length as 
follows: T -/(2 (DEL)/L) 

where DEL ■ defined abeve 
L ■ C/F in feet 

C ■ 1100 ft/sec, speed of sound 
F “ frequency, Hertz 

The attenuation parameter is then used to calculate the barrier attenuation. The curve used Is shown In Figure 1, and 
comes from Mackawa, Z., "Noise Reduction by Screen of Finite Size," Memoirs of the Faculty of Engineering, Kobe Univ., No, 
12, 1966. The curve was fitted using three equations to cover three ranges as shewn In Figure 1. 

Once the barrier attenuation Is known for each octave band frequency of Interest, the octave band level at the receiver 
Is calculated as follows: N " S - JO log R/RO - A(R-RO) - T - F 

1000 

where S ■source^octave band JevgJ_ 

R - yV/2 + (X-£ /) 2 ' +\'Y Z + (X-Z) 2 + U, diffracted distance In feet 

R0 ■ measurement distance In feet for source levels 
A ■ atmospheric absorption In dB/1000 feet 
T ■ barrier attenuation in decibels 
F * Weighting factors in decibels (A wgt usually) 

next, the weighted octave band sound pressure levels are summed to obtain the weight sound level. For most cases, this 
will be the A-weighted sound level as heard by the receiver. 

The program next increments by a factor of 2 the value of Y, the distance from the receiver to the barrier and loops 
through the program until the value of Y Is equal to or greater than 2000 feet. At this point, the program will then incre¬ 
ment the barrier height X by a value of 5 feet, recalculate everything and continue to loop until the barrier height Is 
equal to or greater than 50 feet. At this point, the program will read another set of Input parameters W, X, Y, Z, E, and 
R0 and go through the entire sequence again. The program may be terminated By entering a value of -I for the parameter Y. 

Output from the program will be on the line printer and will Include W, Z, E, X, Y, and L, In that order. 

Program structure is such that the card deck Is composed of: (I) output device and other control cards; (2) program 
cards; (3) data cards; and (4) control end card. 

Format of the data cards is shown in Figure 2. The card is divided Into nine fields having a length of eight character 
each. It Is assumed that, the input value Is composed of four Integer places and four decimal places. The data cards are 
assembled In the sequence shown. 


FIEL0: 1-72 characters, Left to Right 
CARD ffl : Parameters W, X, Y, Z, E, R0 & U 


( ) ( ) 

I 2 

CARD ffl : 


( ) ( ) decimal point ( ) ( ) 

3 4 5 6 

Parameters for barrier attenuation 
hz “ / (ft) hz • *• 

31.5 34.92 250 



Itftl 

0.55 






63 

17.46 500 

2.20 

4000 

0.28 





125 

8.80 1000 

•1.10 

8000 

0.14 

CARD- 

Octave 

band center frequency SPL 

CARD t! 4: 

Source height (h) 

by band width 


CARD #5: 

Atmospheric absorption by band width 






hz ■ 

■ dB/1000' 

hz 

dB/1000' hz 

- dB/1000' 





31.5 

0.0 

250 

0.4 2000 

3.5 





63 

0.1 

500 

0.7 4000 

7.6 





125 

0.2 

1000 

1.5 8000 

13.7 




CARD 

A-Wetghtlng Corrections 

by octave band center frequency 


CARO #7: 

STOP 

COMMAND 








Y - . 

•1 tn Col 


hz “ 

Correction (dB) 

hz 

■ Correction (dB) 

hz ■» • Correction (dB) 


Field 3 


31.5 

+39.4 

250 

+8.6 

2000 

-1.2 




63 

+26.2 

500 

+3.2 

4000 

-1.0 




125 

+ 16.1 

1000 

0.0 

8000 

-1.1 




17-18 of 


Figure 2 


May 12, 1977 


K-12 










































































































APPENDIX L 


Noise Impact Analysis Report on Elementary 
School Affected by Street Traffic 


1712 


FILE HO. i 
DATE i 
TO i 
FROM i 
SUBJECT i 


omi co. 


CITY el SAN DIEGO 

MEMORANDUM 

received 
UM 20 '977 

March 28 , 1977 Operations 

Director of Transportation, Attention Don Robbtns 
Building Inspection Director 

Noise Impact Report on Lowell Elementary School caused by Beardsley Street Traffic 


This noise analysis report was prepared at the request of the Transportation Department 
to evaluate the potential for lessening the Beardsley Street traffic noise impact 
on students and teachers inside classrooms at Lowell Elementary School In San Diego. 
While traffic volurpes are not unusually high for a school site, the relatively large 
percentage of three, four and five-axle trucks has stimulated public concern and 
complaints. 

The Hourly Noise Level (HNL) was selected for the measurement criterion because of 
Its appearance in California noise legislation and the San Diego Noise Abatement and 
Control Ordinance for evaluating public exposure to noise. It is recognized that a 
Statistical method of analysis, such as the Ljq measurement, might better describe 
the Intrusionary nature of the truck noise. For comparison, the L eq is approximately 
equivalent to the L 24 for the Beardsley Street distribution of sound levels. Neither 
the L«q nor the L n methods of analysis completely account for the basic element of 
disturbance according to those complaints received. The frequency of occurrence 
for noticeably-loud trucks passing is such that communication betv/een the teacher 
^nd students Is interrupted, especially In the morning hours, approximately ten 
times during each class. This situation is not unlike aircraft overflight noise 
Interruption at city schools in proximity to the approach and departure path for 
Lindbergh Field. In these cases too, the average sound level is considerably lower 
than the maximum level experienced by students and teachers during the flyover. 

Several minutes of class time are lost each day because of this problem. 

METHODOLOGY 

1, Sound Exposure Level (SEL) measurements and classification of traffic mix by 
number of axles per vehicle were conducted at Beardsley Street adjacent to 
Lowell Elementary School on Fe brua ry 16, 1977. The SEL's for each vehicle 
measured and the average SEL (StL) for each axle class are contained in 
Attachment A. The table in Attachment B lists the numbers of each axle count 
during the 105 minute observation and the results of acoustical calculations. 

For simplification, the mean distance from the center of both lanes of travel, 

*!.e. 25 feet, was used as the source loccus Instead of adjusting SEL measure¬ 
ments by lane distance. The latter method would have been preferable, but was 
not practical with number of staff available to conduct the test. 

2. The average SEL (s£l) for each class was adjusted for the frequency of occur¬ 
rence compared with the other classes; Attachment C shows the relative sig¬ 
nificance of each axle class on the average Sound Exposure Level. The noise 
contributions for each class were then combined by the formula: 


160 


L-2 




Lowell Elementary School 
Page 2 

March 28, 1977 

SEL% « X ££L ax + 10 log|oN ax - 10 1og| 0 N t 

where: N ■ numbers of vehicles counted 

ax » axle class, l.e, 2 , 3» 4 or 5 axle 
t ■ all axle classes 

3» The Hourly Noise Level for each axle class (HNL%) resulting from the number of 
Hourly Vehicle Trips for each class (HVT%) were determined by the formula: 

HNL% - + 10 log jo HVT % _ 35,36 

Attachment D depicts the HNL per HVT for 2; 2 S- 3; 2, 3, S- 4: and 2, 3, 4, and 5 
axle class combinations. 

4. The variation In Hourly Noise Levels was calculated from a City Department of 
Transportation machine vehicle count during a 21 hour period from September 
30, 1976 to October 2, 1976. The HVT are displayed as HNL on attachments E 
and F. HNL = 10 log^Q HVT + 21 All HNl%. These attachments also show the cal¬ 
culated peak Hourly Noise Level, the mean HNL for 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., the Day 
Night Average Sound Level (DNAL) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). 

р. The reduction In sound level due to columnar spreading Is proportional to the 
distance traveled as depicted In Attachment G. The HNL contours of attachment 
H were derived from the graph In Attachment G. 

The limits of error for this report were not vigorously calculated but can be made 
available upon request. Assuming the usual deviations caused by the following 
variables, the data Is expected to fall within approximately plus or minus two 
decibels of actual conditions; 

a. Actual distances vs. the assumed mean distance from the source pathway to 
the microphone. 

b. Instrumentation error; 

с. Deviation of annual average HVT from the machine count due to seasonal or weekly 
variations In traffic. 

d. Reflecting surfaces. Two walls, one fifteen feet behind the microphone and one 
62 feet In front of the microphone, were responsible for some increase In the 
sound measurement above a free field measurement. 

e. Actual deviation of SEL averages for each axle class from the population 
measured. 

The Instrumentation used was a Deltec 8000 time averaging sound level meter with 
manual time Interval control. Time Intervals were begun as the approaching vehicle 
sound levels became barely audible and were stopped as the decrescendo dropped below 
the ambient. Only SEL values for which one vehicle at a time was within the micro¬ 
phone range at the time of the measurement were actually used. Wind speed was less 
than five knots. Microphone height was four feet above the ground. 


L-3 


Lowell Elementary School 
Page 3 

March 28 , 1977 


CONCLUSIONS 

If four and five-axle vehicles were restricted from the current traffic mix, the 

7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Hourly Noise Levels could be reduced by approximately 40% and 
the number of interruptions each hour could be reduced from approximately eight 
to four. Prohibiting three-axle vehicles as well would reduce the Hourly Noise 
Level only 17% of the total and eliminate the remaining four statistical intrusions 
per hour. These intrusions are only one-half the magnitude of those caused by 
four and five-axle vehicles; therefore, restricting three-axle vehicle traffic 
would probably not significantly improve the condition nor would it be a good 
cost-effective solution. To compare our calculations with first-hand experience, 

I spoke with a Ms. Carmen Foster who teaches Kindergarten from 8:30 a.m. until 
2:30 p.m. in a classroom which lies within 35 feet of Beardsley Avenue. When 
asked for her personal interpretation of the noise problem, she stated that 
approximately six times each hour, especially in the morning, larger truck noise 
interrupts communication at levels not completely masking her voice, but being 
so competitive, communication is momentarily unproductive. She felt further 
that smaller truck and passenger vehicle noise does not penetrate the classroom 
to the extent necessary to cause a disturbance. She emphasized that these inter¬ 
ruptions rarely occur after 12 noon. This experience is consistent with our 
expectations based on the measurements and calculations contained in this report. 

This acoustical analysis and conversations with school staff indicate that a pro¬ 
hibition of four and five-axle vehicles on the subject segment of Beardsley Street 
between the hours of 8 a.m. and 12 noon, Monday through Friday, would significantly 
reduce the noise problem. It is our understanding that such a restriction could 
take the form of a vehicle weight limit. To minimize business interruptions in 
the area by preventing ingress and egress of four and five-axle trucks, it is 
Important, we feel, that the restriction be enforced only between the hours of 

8 a.m. and 12 noon, Monday through Friday. 

Questions concerning procedures and technical formulae utilized in this analysis 
should be directed to the City of San Diego Noise Abatement and Control Office of 
the Building Inspection Department. 


G. W. CURTIS 
B 



NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL ADMINISTRATOR 


Enclosures 


gh 


L-4 





CITY OF SAN DIEGO 

NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL OFFICE 


ATTACHMENT A 


Sound Exposure Level (SEL) by Axle Class 
- at 25 Ft. from center of Beardsley Street 


Project: Lovell Elementary School 
1130 Beardsley Street 





Date: 

February 16, 1977 

Time: 

As Indicated 

\ 

2-AXLE 

H US 

SEL 


3-AXLE 

H M S SEL 

4-AXLE 

H M S' SEL 

5-AXLE 

H M S SEL 

♦OTHER 

H M S SEL 

O 6365 I+ 

77.0 

dB 

102613 

87 .O dB 

090814 

86.5 dB 

102743 89.4 dB 

084705 81.5 dB 

083929 

77-0 

dB 



091929 

90.4 dB 

102624 90.7 dB 


084440 

77.0 

dB 



094351 

80.4 dB 

104812 89.6 dB 

090346 7^-0 dB 

084376 

74.7 

dB 



094729 

87.4 dB 



090804 

77.5 

dB 



095354 

91.5 dB 


09531^ 84.0 dB 

093936 

77.0 

dB 



102359 

87.7 dB 



094233 

79.0 

dB 












88.45 , 

dB Average 

89.94 dB Average 8l,44 dB Average 

094337 

77.0 

dB 







095156 

84.3 

dB 







095226 

81.3 

dB 







095605 

80.5 

dB 







100157 

77.0 

dB 







100458 

72.2 

dB 







100919 

80.0 

dB 












H - 

HOUR 



102830 

74.0 

dB 



M - 

MINUTE 








S - 

SECOND 



105015 

77-0 

dB 



dB - 

DECIBELS 



104055 

80.0 

dB 







104105 

82.0 

dB 








79.08 dB Average (2 axle) *OTHER: Dual Axle 

8 l.44 dB Average (other) 

79.35 dB Average (2 axle and other) 








DOT - TRANSPORTATION DESIGN 
Vehicle Classification Study 
Beardsley St (Main St - Newton Av) 


ATTACHMENT S 


<1) 



2 Axles 






Starting 

Time 

0 

Auto 

Motor 

Cycle 

Pickup 

Small 

Vans 

Large 

Vans 

* 

Other 

J 

Axles 

4 5 

Total 

8:30 

34 

- 

7 

1 

- 

- 

1 

1 - 

44 

8:45 

39 

2 

4 

1 

- 

4 

- 

1 - 

51 

9:00 

16 

-- 

3 

2 

- 

4 

• 

1 1 

27 

9:15 

10 

- 

5 

2 

- 

mm 

- 

1 - 

18 

9:30 

13 

- 

3 

- 

- 

2 

1 

1 - 

20 

9:45 

11 

1 

1 

- 

- 

5 

2 

1 1 

22 

10:00 

12 

- 

e 

l 

- 

- 

1 

1 

- 

15 

10:15 

12 

mm 

7 

- 

1 

2 

2 

- 2 

26 

Totals 

147 

3 

31 

6 

1 

18 

7 

6 4 

223 

★General ly 
This study 

dua1 back wheels 

was conducted 8: 

30 to 10:30 

a.m. , 

2-16-77 






NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL OFFICE 
VEHICLE NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS 


UNIT CALCULATED 

2 Axles 

1 

Axles 

-4- 

5 

Percentage of total vehicle . 

Count (%) 

. . . 92.37 

3.14 

. 2.69 

1.79 

Average, A-welghted, Sound Exposure . . . 
Level (SEL) In decibels (dB) 

. . . 79.08 

87.00 

88.45 

89.94 

Average SEL, A-weighted contribution . . 
to total (SEL x %) (dB) 

. . . 78.78 

71.97 

72.75 

72.47 

Average Hourly Noise Level (HNL). 

contribution (SEL x % 

3600 sec.) (dB) 

. . . 43.22 

36.41 

37.19 

36.91 


HOURLY AVERAGE NOISE LEVELS PER VEHICLE FOR TRAFFIC MIX AT 50' 


2 axle. 43.22 dB 

2 axle S- 3 axle. 44.04 dB 

2 axle S- 3 5- 4 axle. 44.86 dB 

2 axle & 3, 4 & 5 axle. 45.50 dB 


(HNL DURING TEST PERIOD = 66.5 dB at 
25 Ft. from center of Beardsley St.) 


3-23-77 


L-6 




























ATTACHMENT C 



\*f> 

loo 


>< 

X 

o 

u. 

u. 

2 


CC 

o 


in 

CM 

t- 

< 


UJ 

CH 

=3 

«/■> 

O 

CL. 

X 


ro 

o 

i/i 


$3l3lH3A :3lXV~r 


nr. 


S310IH3A 31XV ♦? 


S310IH3A 31XV £ 


in 

UJ 


UJ 

> r-~ 

CO 

UJ *- ■ 
_) CO 
X CT\ 
< 

CM 


JM 

CO 


<M> 

CO 

o\ 


coo 

c:: 

> > > 


O 

O 


LO 

<n 


cn 


-ja^rjs ~A? i spa esg 


UV 

oo 

J 31 U 33 




in 

i"- 


o 


ujcJ j i^a a 7-3 j rrs o dx3 - pu no $- 


in 


L-7 


$ of total traffic mix (2$ per 3/16 Inch) 

















46 5493 ATTACHMENT 



2 _ 


3 ... 


2 ... 


I 


! ! i 


I I 







V) 








4) 








■o 



• 





3 

VI 







•— 

4> 


Li. 

LA 



•W 

to 


l nc 
St. 

> 

L. 

3 

4) 

> 

CM 






O 

43 ^ 






•* >~ 


-1 E 

L> 



4> 


Q. 0) 

4) 

CL 

ro 





•— •— 


4) 




W 


1- VI 

X 

V) 1 




"O 


*-» -a 

co 

— e 

in 



i. 


L. 


O (13 




<13 


4) (Q 

-3- 

2 

0) 



0) 


— 4) 

o 


X 



CO 


U CD 

ro 

>» — 

•• 





•— 

•k 

— 4) 

o 

• 



r-. 

-C 1_ 

CM 

1- > 

a> 



L. 

r>. 

4) O 

O 

3 4) 

“D 

ro 


D 

cn 

> «*- 

O —1 

' w ' 

3 


o 



*** 

I 


-o 


X 


i- X 

0) 

43 


<0 

io 



(U — 

•— 

"O VI 

V 

o 

> 

L. 

ro 

Cl E 

X 

<D — 

> 



<D 

CM 


<u 

+J O 

0) 



CL 


—1 1) 


U 2 

—J 

<4- 



-C 

2 — 

CA 

a> 


o 


in 

o 

X X 

u5 

Q. >* 




CL 

u 


CM 

X — 

<o 

l_ 



m 

«k 


0) V. 

•— 

<u 


L. 

s: 

CD UTV 

■ 

D 

o 

4-J 


K— 


-O oS 

• •» 

LJ O 

z 

c 





4) 

tn x 


V 


0) 


O -T 


0) 


u 




LA « 

X 

X c 




o 


• CO 

flj 

O) <TJ 

t_ 

p 




irv « 


fll 

D 

o 

1_ 


X 

CD 


-3- CM 

C<J 

X 2 

x 

U— 


> 


• 

◄ 

<J 0 



< i- : 


I I 


—!—L 


4) 


*TT 




I I I 


3.. 


1.J 

o 

o 


■T t ‘ 


X 


11 h t 


ITT 


o 

<n 


o 

oo 


o 


o 

vO 


(sisqpap) 13 A 31 as|ON Ayrton 


o 

»r\ 


o 

-T 


O 

CA 


L-8 





































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































HOURLY NOISE LEVEL 

HOURLY VEHICLE TRIPS ATTACHMENT E 


Location Beardsley St. Traffic Count 
fMain tc Newton) 


Oate 9-29-Yo to 10-1-76 


n • 



%/ 


? 

< 

> 


o 

N 

* 


o 

Z 


L-9 








































































































ATTACHMENT F 



60 


J—h 


-t—»- 


50 


3-29-76: 


±zr 




=©CC 


:©ro: 




-— i~ 


40 


=3>- 


ffccro= 


-i—i- 


—u 


:cr 


-—-- 


60 


:~r 


; 4 


50 


=ET 


32= 


:9-30^76= 


-t-r 


32=GC 


32 


=<2= 


<7>ZdZ©-0 0 


32: 


40 


□QC 


-4>—Q- 


4>- 


i—- 


32 


-0. 32GX. 


32C 


-t—r 


--- 


-- 1- 


60 


4=^ 


-■—>- 


-i—i- 


x=r 


50 


32 


10-1-76= 


:G: 


—i —h 


--r- 


-->" 


40 


3Zco: 


-!->“ 






P=F 


-> — — 


-I-!- 


I- 1 - 




-!-► 


->—r 


60 


-i—.—>- 




-r—l- 


--- 


--h 


50 


-t—r 


Day ^ 


H-I 


1 -!— 

^Night: 


40 


Daytime- 

-i—-l— T~r 


Eve- 


8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 



TIME OF DAY, HOURS 


Lowell Elementary School Hourly Noise Levels (HNL; 25 Ft. 
from the center of Beardsley Street 


L -10 


CNEL 

DNAL 














































































































































































































































































































46 5493 


ATTACHMENT C 



L-ll 


Distance (feet) from the center of Beardsley Street 


























































































































































































































































































































































































































L-12 


pT> -1 3 9 


































































































































APPENDIX M 


Newspaper Article on Enforcement 
Activities of the Aquatics Division 


Crackdown on 
Noisy Boats 

SAN DIEGO — The City of San Diego's 
Mission- Bay Harbor Patrol will begin a 
crackdown on noisy boats in Mission Bay 
Park, it was recently announced. 

Jim Talley, acting superintendent of the 
City's Aquatics Division which operates 
the Harbor Patrol, says that the crack¬ 
down on noisy vessels will be on 
weekends for the next two or three 
months in response to recent complaints 
by residents living near Mission Bay Park. 

TaJley said. "Since 1975. the Harbor 
Patrol has tested and removed 87 boats 
from Mission Bay for being too noisy. The 
maprity of the boats in violation belong to 
people residing outside San Diego 
County." He added, “ Too noisy' means 
the vessel operates at a noise level above 
84 decibels at 50 feet, which is the limit set 
by City and State laws.” 

"Most vessels with above-the-waterlme 
muffler systems are in excess of the 84 
decibel level." Talley said. “The Harbor 
Patrol will be testing vessels for ac¬ 
ceptable decibel levels and will escort 
those in violation from park waters We 
will issue citations lo boat operators who 
refuse to leave or to repeat violators." 
Talley added 

"If you have a vessel with an above-the- 
waterline muffler or suspect that your 
boat is too noisy, you may have it tested 
free of ch^ge by the Mission Bay Harbor 
Patrol." Talley-said. To arrange for 
testing, contact the Mission Bay Harbor 
Patrol office at 224-1862 or 236-6652. 
between 8 a.m and 5 p.m.. daify. 

(Decibels are units measuring the 
loudness of sound One decibel is the 
smallest unit of sound the average person 
can hear. The average home measures 50 
decibels, an average factory measures 80- 
90 decibels, and a jet plane. 140 decibels. 
Excessive noise may cause irritability, 
pain, or hearing loss.) 

(According to the National Institute for 
Occupational Health and Safety, two to 
three years of daily exposure to 90 
decibels of sound may permanently 
damage a person's hearing. The 84 decibel 
limit on motorboats in Mission Bay Park is 
included in San Diego Municipal 
Ordinance 63 25.7 and California Harbors 
and Navigation Code 654.05.) 


■Reprinted by permission of 
San Diego Log. Originally 
published October 31, 1977. 


M-2 


* U S GOVSWMEXT PRKTO OfRCt 1979 -281-147/143 










' 
























o 



• ft 


) •/ 



> V 


• < 



• • 


◄ 

0 


o 

< 



• ft 


V 

* 7 * 

C 


• o 



1 


o’ 

o 














UV 

*. *b / G ®V <* ^ ,0* ^O 

** O ^ *r Cj * o 

o * <oo\\\Tr , ^k ,r w 


*o 



V 


4 O^ 

<y • 


* . * * T^v/V/yp * n'" _ ^- ‘V 

v> ^ y o*** 

a ■> v" cv 



<a ^ • 

’ 4 ^y ^ 

- -,-j.; K «—- \ A V 

v» <. *^«' ,0 v. 

A c 04 # « o^ .'■'** o 

A * V<SSW **L C U ^Vv?^* V 

:*w®i“'. ** 0 < 




.0 v*. «• 4 0 . 

^ . ?* *^* 

e ■ o ‘ .O' 3 **,.*' O * eTo ’ .0 

*• %a A\ \/ r m- v • 

- r S '■f' t ‘WywvVtf * ■* ° 

* \>^. '’vGpfkXr * A/^ * jXcSprf^ * 4/* <£■ o' 1 




V 

^ * S**" , <j. 

,, *> " ’ <* T 
o . i • •* ^ v 


V Y vL’A/* ^ A' . V_°' ^ v . » i.vw - - 

%. A* .>V/k« ty <A • * 

f* a °% 

* 'X * * Ij^lwPrV^ * ° ^ 

4? <- '••^TT-- c. t %■'••"•* <V <• c,-*- ^ ’ 

- 0 ‘ ,. 1 '/* o^ > . t l^°% ^ f° t ,k JLL*, °o . 6 J<^<“ 4 , r° ♦*'" 



vP. 



f . 

C' v * 

O *0*0 

i rfMi' 

O 

* % C\, A ( 

So * ^ ,4> 

" vP S 

* ////7n 

° 'i/fni. 
o *v ^5 

• q 

^ 4 A V C- 

. ^0 • 

A 4 A < 


J> C V“. 

4^ . *^va' 





i v ,••«>, *> V s S*V C 





“ c.^* v/ o'. ° 

* V ^ * 



O ^ • O 

°* ‘-* 00 A 0 ' 

v s % sy 




^ A^ *■ 

<^ *1 

« A V-^v > ' 
* ^ •; 


’ ^ -V 

' - o V 


» 7\ , 

r 


: • v\ V ^ - ' 

4 A > • 

O. '•. »• A <, *-^T' .G v '»• * 4 A <. 

o A o 0 “ 0 * <^. i q^“ . 1 * *« *o jG o ° * °« <$ 3 

° ^ V Cr «-Vw7^-’, ° ^ 


' s. - ■fc^BRS^C^ « i!V *Ki * 

<i- ~ r^/jt^ * ds ^ *-%li\v^ » _ ^ ^t. * 

^ *"'*' ^ < ^ % •-» , ,s° 

••/V .^..AJ-to- ^ ^ 




' *’*°- > V % »LV*> o. 


* - ^sampy ® <A ^ ® ■* * A ^ o * A ^r, «^ 

<* V '7A‘ o *•.»* A <. */77T‘ G^ O 'o. . 4 A <, 4 ^T..‘ ,G^ <5 

-», ^ f 0^ t* 14 , ^*° 0 4 , ^ r o* g* l J^ 4 . ° 0 CJ " % ,o* t • 1 ' 4 - ' P o. 

)V. ■%. « 0 *V5^l* ^ 4 0 ^ ^ c :#£?&* " 



4 O. 

i ’ »* •« 


^ V 


* ^5 

% V . °o 0° ^ \ *0.0* u- 

> .'^&V. %, ,V§fV- o ^ A •%, A* .’• 

V , A V ° ^sllfs^v . - ■•’ 



_V V, 


-v .. .. - -u '-', ■••»- <. ,,i‘ .G'" ' > o< * , o > » < T'* A 

^ c. 0 " 0 * <£. f\V # i # • ,, - o 11 o . k iO^ . W » • - 





x^y, ■ ■ .rv^y 

- %a .*^Sfer-. • 




^ . A x? i 

<^o * 

’ * \V' 3 \ j ^ 

* ** ^ -j 

V. *••’ A v ^ "** .. ^ *•*’ A w ” * * a\" 

.o' 1 .*0 o, A c 0 “ 0 * ^ 

- , <* ° J* % 

• ^ o' • * O v 

x° v, * '^§§f^‘ o5°^ x°-/v 

•y.. v"y... v*-> v-— - y 

%A :i|: X/ .‘^: 

. . _ .-• a\ '-SK* /\ •JJ# a\ '-SK* : * 

v * • • * a'- 1 °^> '° * * * ^ CtvT‘ G^ O, 4 «. * 4 A <> CtvT 4 ^ 

", ^ ^0‘ ,•'!*’ ^o o y ^ ,o^ t 0 .’'*/^ 

' - 0 / • “ ' 



a *; 

• ^ *jK 

- ^ * tjv 





<?5 °v<> -vn^s. w k ° ^ ^ \~cz2dMdf* 4> ^ -vn^C 0 x v *o. ^ ^ 

S A t .. C V^- o’ \ -^' ^ / %/W?' / -o 4 .'^- ^ 

' iX-S/ .*M- w v •«'•-\/° -m-. \a v ^\/ 9 .•; 



o' 5, .-‘A!* "o 

i * &/!??>> - '■ 


,*v ©* 


} * A^C. 

^ * A V •?* 

* ^ tt» 



r o 'o. * * A <j. 

" o A % g°- a , 

*> A J 


• A V 
r** ,<? ^ "* 


* A > • 

r y , y 4 ^ ^ «*» "V d ' 1 

'•••' <0 V O -o..* Si < -TXT' 0^ 

,o^ t - 1 "" ^o A^ % ojs A 

- ^ S an /<^w* ^ 


?►” v, S 0 ^ * Vfi^c * 0 y /, v. .-^ ^ ~ V[M?o*\' 

* 0 ^°° ,.o V"’V ••• V“- 0 V 0 ° 44 ^^"’‘* ^ ... ^ % *- 0 °* 

* %A « :S4 % - ^ 


O v 


* A V . < 

_ * *b -& - 

'° • » 4 A <a 

A o ° w 0 ■* <5*. 

O V A , r^SSVv A *p 
«\ « «SSS\\n'V'' "5 

•v A 




A w '«J>. ' * ' 1 * -V 

Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 


& ^ ”o vJ8 W . A' ❖. '. ^W=2 »' A e 

^5. '». » 4 A <\ ‘'^TvT 4 ,g^ 

* <5^ aV t ^ 1 * a o 0 * 0 . /fc ^.V 

k. V . t 0 -V^\ - 


a^-v - 


^'V 

'■ '> k , » 

v - > » • - < V) 

.G v .o"o A t *. 

^ -isssC.' -e <-° > 1 ^.*. 1 


(l Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

^ V Treatment Date: March 2004 

* v*^* 

4 * y ^ PreservationTechnologies 

O , k * <\ A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

rfA . ., Ill Thomson Park Drive 

o _ A o ° 0 




(Jrarthprrv Tnui/rtchin PA IROfiR 


O, 'o , » * A > ♦/ T‘ c.v 

'*♦ **0 J> V ,o-«* <S> ** . w#.. 






>, S-'Mk-X r •• 

v\ v ^s s 

1 * - 

V 4* % -J 



4 ' .... 

-O V 8 - • „,., _ 

- W«'\V'J - I ... 'ryymdr ' ^ ' 7 j#» 

^ v' °o o° ^ ‘•tt;*** °o *'* ,o° 

^ ^ v / ^ .»>£& ^ ^ #L •* * 


0 ?y v V 




* ^ 




-y * 
vv 


<, • ••• ■%*••••~y - ---rr-'V’ \ “ 

* * ^ c 0 ^ i * ‘A* * ^°o ^ o “V * ^ Q^ t . 4 ' * . c 

^ ^ o <\s|^V'. -x c 0 

o V . < 'W*ni2 . «*• 0 





£°<* ’JSIIfiSV * 0v * \' E 22HBf: - ViI«s^- X- ^ v™, ,> 

'•'*' °°^ '*• .<*’* ^ 0 ° +* ** h °o o° ^ w?®?.' ^ <r o'*.To’ 

'•••* .<' <“> *'■•'* ^ "k, '••■* a <■.»*. 4 

O 4 P 0 i77 *, ^4> (y » • 1 ' * ♦ *o J 1 ' o ®“ • • <i> . 4 ' • « **o <V^ 6 ® “ * * 

>’. ^ v4 «*<?>§sV,VV' 'r. . v * X’dlTfoy!, 0 .'tsmV. V C Smff???** 0 • -r^cv * 

■**- 3 ** 0 « :£Mgp. ^o ^ 

A ‘.«M>.' vOv*. /lo. ,0 -r, 

.0 -o.*^*> X'^\/ V^-V \*-^--- 


••• ‘b 



*bv T 


4° -'■)., 



y • 1 • •- 


f's' 

s>-^* 


^ . 


r <? <U 

> v s . 



•* r* A t 
• • 


•••*' - 0 ' V*-’-' ^ .. "%'^'’ *? V \ ••• s v -<.-•■• 4 - 

* * * °- %?■ v % c* . 0 ^ •> Y 


■%, 'vP?* £,** %,’*^^ % '^fSff* 0 ** .'^^V ^ . vppv' 4 V ^ 

" * • ry . i .v c ® • • • <S> (\^ c i • • , <J.^ o • • ^ k / t 

fe %• o'* c :<m. % /v 0< ° ?mf. % / ;•»* v 0< t0 ?m> 


■• * 


v •■;;•• <?, 






WM 


5 N/' 


v/'. 


,.• y v %.* ! ^* 0 ’ V'^'V* v*-- T *\^ r 

‘' »••- ^ <)* ,«•<>, ^ ♦*V , + ^C*. ,0^ .'•«>. '*'> 4 «**/ ’*0 r 

^ .^; \/ -''Mg- &**- ^ 

-• v//TOXV „'* A V *^ j ^kK^ 6 e^°iv “WW* A V ^«. c^n 

'«•»* A <* A° ' 0 •‘ ,, .V s ^ ‘^vT % aC^ o. '.^7* A 

r0^ .•ALL*. <>, A 4 .‘°JL’‘.\. ,o 4 .-‘A!-_ ■* 0 , 4 4 .«”■'. 

L^ * * 


v o> *7 


4 O. 

<1 * ^ «* 


*b v 4, °' 


-••* f° 0 % '*o.o 4 * 0° \ °0 0° % 



V ^ ^ * 


7 , 

-r.7-' a 

* O. ^ C»V. <^ 

o V 


r * «>^ ^ ° 


>° V 



^6^ 


A- * . (v 


■ *>k 

DOBBS BROS. 

liirart IINOINO 


A°° ^ 

» •!•“- > V x 

Ltt W •• 


^ x» » 



I 

.* ^ v \ <£ % v^w.* .^ 4 . 

c *'7VT 4 .0* o ' 0 . 7 * A 

o 4 ,.'■/. ■‘o, A> <•!•. 

* - '-’*'■> - o .11> • 





UN 80 

T. AUGUSTINE 


iflpv *f*‘ vws?: ^ v \ : .l^; #>*< 

fvT* , 0 ^ ^ '-’••* <A < 7 . *'..•• 0 ^ o 'o..* a <v *7777' 0 ^ 

O^ . 4 ' • ♦ O «^ 6 ® * * o o v . 4 * * „ o A^ C 0 * * ♦ ■ < ^ A • 4 ' * 

. c ^ ^ , c °.. y ^ , c 


S V % -ra- / ^ * 

J ^'. a -k^V. ^ > • 

' >V •4wi* y-v • 




V_ * 777 * 


f * A.V'\ 

4 at ^ • 


*• ■* ;£*£ \/ -A- \/ 

o.~ si*. >» 'v * a.' is> 



FLA 
3?nna 











































































